Infusing Intersectional Pedagogy into Adult Education and Human Resource Development Graduate Education

Abstract

Intersectional pedagogy (IP) is an educational intervention to help learners develop a social justice consciousness about interlocking systems of oppression that create injustice at the individual, group, and societal levels. The purpose of the study is to explore tenets of IP and profile ways higher education instructors from adult education (AE) and human resource development (HRD) programs might infuse intersectional perspectives into their teaching. Based on a literature review, this work demonstrates the foundations, principles, strategies, and challenges of IP. Further, this article proposes a tailored course design model to help instructors enact IP in the classroom. This study will benefit AE and HRD scholars by increasing their understanding of IP. Further, it will contribute to developing adult learners’ capacity to examine workplaces and society in critical, intersectional ways and take more mindful, timely action to create more equitable organizations and communities.

Keywords

intersectional pedagogy intersectionality critical pedagogy adult education and human resource development graduate education higher education

Although many leaders, organizations, communities, and nations profess commitment to social justice, their actions contradict their stated intentions for equity and inclusion. For example, only 1.2% of CEOs of Fortune 500 companies are women of color. According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics (2016), about 21.6% of Blacks with a disability were not employed, compared to 11.2% of White non-Hispanic persons with disability and 11% of Black persons without disabilities. An estimated 37% of women living in the poorest countries have experienced partner violence (World Health Organization, 2021). Injustice rampant in global society and organizations is inherently relevant to interlocking systems of oppression, such as ableism, ageism, classism, racism, sexism, capitalism, imperialism, and other forms of oppression. Learning settings hold promise for eradicating social injustice if instructional design and delivery effectively equip learners with the mindsets and skillsets to value intersectionality and act on unjust systems.

Intersectional pedagogy (IP) is an educational approach to help learners develop a social justice consciousness about interlocking systems of oppression that create injustice at the individual, group, and societal levels, grounded in critical pedagogy (CP; Freire, 1970) and intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1989). Learners in every educational setting have a range of visible and invisible identities such as race, gender, sexual orientation, social class, religion, and others that influence how they engage, perceive, and treat others and affect how others regard and treat them. Multiple identities bring a rich diversity of perspectives and experiences to educational spaces, yet if these spaces are inhospitable to how these identities intersect, inequities may arise as the social structures permeating society replicate themselves in the classroom in the forms of oppression.

The adult education (AE) and human resource development (HRD) education programs have been trying to develop a critical consciousness of adult professionals who can reflect on their practices at work and take action to promote equity, diversity, inclusion, and decolonization (EDID) in society (e.g., Alfred et al., 2020; Alfred & Chlup, 2010; Armitage, 2010; Baumgartner & Johnson-Bailey, 2008; Bierema, 2010; Bohonos et al., 2019; Bohonos & Duff, 2020; Chapman & Gedro, 2009; Collins, 2013, 2017; Gold & Bratton, 2014; Isaac-Savage & Merriweather, 2021; Lawless et al., 2012; Merriam & Bierema, 2014; Thomas et al., 2010). Although there is growing attention to intersectionality in AE and HRD (e.g., Byrd, 2014; Merrill & Fejes, 2018), practices and studies that incorporate IP into curricula in both fields remain marginal. Attempting to develop the critical consciousness of adults without an intersectional approach results in teaching about social inequities as discrete, independent phenomena, robs learners of the capacity to systemically analyze how interlocking systems of oppression create and perpetuate injustice. Intersectional mindsets view inequities as interconnected, systemic problems, and equip learners to build capacity to analyze and act on unjust social systems.

The purpose of this paper is to introduce IP by describing its foundations, principles, and practices based on a literature review (Callahan, 2010; Torraco, 2016) to help apply IP in AE and HRD graduate education. Additionally, this paper provides practical praxis for instructors in higher education (HE), especially for graduate education instructors in the fields of AE and HRD who teach adult professionals specialized in learning, leadership, and organization development. The research questions include: (a) what are the key principles of IP? (b) what are the strategies and challenges for HE instructors in practicing IP? (c) how can AE and HRD instructors enact IP? Our implications focus on graduate education in the fields to develop adult professionals willing to change organizations and society from an intersectional perspective.

Theoretical Backgrounds

Intersectional pedagogy explores how to teach intersectionality in educational settings and “infuses intersectional studies across the curriculum” (Case, 2017, p. 9). Understanding intersectionality is a precursor to applying intersectionality to educational settings. Further, IP is grounded in CP that aims to raise critical consciousness through emancipatory education. Thus, intersectionality and CP are core foundations of IP.

Intersectionality

Intersectionality is an analytic tool to understand the influence of intersecting power relations and interrelated social categories on social relations and individual experiences (Collins & Bilge, 2020). The term intersectionality was coined by Crenshaw (1989), who critiqued feminism focused on elite White women for inadequately explaining Black women's experiences and advocated the need to describe the complexity of Black women's discrimination. Involving matrix thinking (May, 2015), intersectionality opposes examining unique experiences of marginalized groups from a “single-axis-framework” (Crenshaw, 1989, p. 140), such as either sexism or racism, which is likely to generate false universalism and ignore differences (McQueeney, 2016). Recent critiques of Chief, a women executives’ networking organization, self-described as “a powerful Rolodex of senior executives from diverse backgrounds, industries, and organizations,” have surfaced about its “White feminism” and ghosting of underrepresented women who attempt to join (Asare, 2023). The Chief example underscores the need for intersectional understandings and interventions in organizations to make them more equitable and just.

Further, intersectionality posits that social phenomenon is related to interlocking power systems in society (Cooper, 2016) as paying “attention to power helps us see how systems of domination are operating even in the absence of obvious disparities” (Grzanka, 2020, p. 254). For example, patriarchal heteronormativity reinforces conformity to a masculine-dominated culture that privileges heterosexual relationships. Although intersectionality started by examining the intersection of gender and race (e.g., Black women), oppressed experiences from various intersected social identities have been reported through the lens of intersectionality. Today, intersectionality is no longer limited to Black feminism (Grzanka, 2020) and involves all social identities. For example, intersectionality may encourage learners to reflect on their ordinary privilege, referring to “the part of our everyday identity we think least about because we do not need to” (Chugh, 2018, p. 112), such as disability for nondisabled people or first language for native English speakers. Intersectionality is also not restricted to individual identities or social categories. Intersectionality should be understood in cultural, political, historical, and structural contexts and how the interaction of the contexts produces different levels of oppression (Naples, 2009; Yuval-Davis, 2006). The ultimate purpose of intersectionality is to promote action for social justice and far-reaching political change (Cooper, 2016; Jones & Wijeyesinghe, 2011).

Critical Pedagogy

Critical pedagogy is an educational intervention to interrogate an oppressive society. Critical pedagogy was introduced by Freire's (1970) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Freire (1970; 2018) challenged “banking education,” a metaphor for a knowledgeable authority depositing dominant knowledge into learners’ heads with an unspoken expectation that it would not be challenged or questioned. Banking education assumes students’ absolute ignorance, dichotomizes the roles of students (listeners, objects) and teachers (talker, subjects), and “attempts to maintain the submersion of consciousness” (p. 81, italic in original) of students to conceal and mythicize reality (Freire, 2018). For example, the omission or sugar-coated discussion of slavery in the US educational system makes the struggles and abuse of Blacks throughout history invisible. It reinforces a curriculum of White supremacy across the entire US K-12 system. Current right-wing protests against critical race theory (CRT) being taught in schools are based on a false belief CRT is a part of the curriculum. Yet, the rhetoric only serves to reinforce racist educational practices.

Following Freire's (1970) idea, subsequent researchers organized the assumptions and values of CP. Critical pedagogy posits that education is an inherently political activity (Kincheloe, 2008), and schooling has dialectical nature understanding “schools as sites of both domination and liberation” (McLaren, 2017, p. 57, italic in original). Education can be a dominative, hegemonic practice, given that a hidden and unintended curriculum will likely deliver a dominant ideology that cannot be removed completely (McLaren, 2017). However, education can be a liberatory practice if the resistance of the oppressed is considered as a resource (Toshalis, 2015), and if students’ different backgrounds (e.g., identities, social and cultural capital) and the impact of the different backgrounds on their learning are considered.

Methods

We, the authors, conducted a literature review (Callahan, 2010; Torraco, 2016) to explore IP principles and practices presented in the HE context and profile ways HE instructors from AE and HRD programs might infuse intersectional perspectives into their teaching. We began the literature search and selection by searching IP literature using the search term “intersectional pedagogy” in Google Scholar, which generated 490 results. While reviewing the literature list, we found that most documents were not accessible and presented repetitively. Fortunately, we found that Case's (2017) edited book and Pliner and Banks’s (2012) co-edited book included chapters addressing IP in the HE settings. Thus, we began reading the whole chapters of the two edited books. Then, we expanded the search terms to “teaching intersectionality” and “intersectional” AND “pedagogy” in case we might miss some studies that discussed IP but could not be found in the search only because of not using the term “intersectional pedagogy” exactly. This additional search yielded 925 and 43,200 results, respectively, although most were repetitive or inaccessible as well. Starting from the articles on the first page of Google Scholar, we skimmed each title and abstract and included the articles in our review list if the articles addressed IP in the HE context. To be included in our review list, the literature should have clearly mentioned that the article or chapter addresses teaching intersectionality or EDID courses from an intersectional perspective.

As a result, we selected 28 IP articles focusing on the HE context, including (a) 20 pedagogical studies by instructors from various fields in HE who have enacted IP in their teaching (e.g., Anderson & Riley, 2021; Atehortúa, 2020; Baylina Ferré & Rodó de Zárate, 2016; Burns, 2020; Case & Lewis, 2012; Case & Lewis, 2012, 2017; Case & Rios, 2017; Davis, 2010; Espostio & Happel, 2012; Jones & Wijeyesinghe, 2011; Lee, 2012; Mahrouse, 2016; McCarthy & Larson, 2012; McQueeney, 2016; Pliner et al., 2012; Rivera, 2017; Robinson et al., 2016; Smele et al., 2017; Wallin-Ruschman et al., 2020) and (b) eight conceptual studies that provided rich information on IP (e.g., Alvarez-Hernandez, 2020; Banks & Pliner, 2012; Case, 2013, 2017; Grzanka, 2020; Kurtis & Adams, 2017; Naples, 2009; Simon et al., 2022). The literature review enabled us to confirm the structure of the findings of our study: IP principles, strategies, and challenges because these chapters largely showed how each author (instructor) enacted IP in specific fields (e.g., psychology, sociology, women's studies) by reflecting on their IP practices (e.g., strategies, challenges) using their own IP principles.

Then, we conducted a meta-analysis—summarizing the analytic results from each study in a Word document to integrate research findings (Torraco, 2016). We created the “principles,” “strategies,” and “challenges” sections in a Word document and put a summary of the review into the applicable section. We then compared each summary and clustered similar results into each theme (e.g., IP principle 1. Raise intersectional consciousness). Synthesizing the analytic summaries, we present IP principles, strategies, and challenges in a thematic structure (Torraco, 2016).

Later, we noticed that none of the studies in the AE or HRD fields were included in our review list. Thus, we additionally searched articles about AE and HRD education in order to integrate the contexts and discussion of AE and HRD education studies. Using diverse search terms, including “intersectionality,” “adult education classroom,” “HRD education,” and “critical HRD,” we found articles addressed AE and HRD education from a critical perspective (e.g., Alfred et al., 2020; Alfred & Chlup, 2010; Armitage, 2010; Baumgartner & Johnson-Bailey, 2008; Bierema, 2010; Bohonos et al., 2019; Bohonos & Duff, 2020; Chapman & Gedro, 2009; Collins, 2013, 2017; Gedro, 2010; Gold & Bratton, 2014; Isaac-Savage & Merriweather, 2021; Lawless et al., 2012; Merriam & Bierema, 2014; Thomas et al., 2010). Synthesizing these fields’ contexts and IP principles and practices we found, we offer an example of a course plan that could be considered when designing a single course used in a semester class in AE and HRD.

Enacting IP

Principles of IP

The principle of IP is the purpose and promise of instructors enacting IP in the classroom. Based on the literature review, seven specific principles of IP were found. Table 1 describes each principle of IP and offers tangible actions for implementing it in the classroom.
Raise intersectional consciousness.

Share positionality and open vulnerability as the instructor.

Incorporate context and history.

Challenge the social norms by unpacking power dynamics in society.

Address both privilege and oppression.

Deconstruct existing theories and practices.

Connect to social change.

Table 1.
Principles of Intersectional Pedagogy.

Principles Descriptions Examples

Raise intersectional consciousness
Advocate for students to become change agents who make a difference in society by raising their intersectional consciousness and acting on their knowledge.

Build intersectional consciousness—awareness that individual experiences, interpersonal relationships, and social phenomena stem from interlocking systems of oppression, which accompany critical action to interrogate the system.

Recognize how intersectional consciousness recognizes micro (e.g., individual and interpersonal), meso (e.g., institutional and organizational), and macro (e.g., national and global) levels of inequity and injustice are closely interrelated.

Encourage students to develop multilevel lenses, for instance:
harassment against women of color from the working class (micro level), and

the pay gap due to gender, race, and position (meso level),

global phenomena that have a disproportionately negative impact on Global South (macro level)

Consider aggressions originating from interlocking systems of oppression, such as capitalism, colonialism, heteropatriarchy, sexism, racism, and others.

Share positionality and open vulnerability as the instructor
Set an example by initially sharing vulnerability and positionality so students feel safer revealing their positionality and vulnerability (Smele et al., 2017).

Reveal personal privileged or oppressed identities to influence the class, which might decrease students’ resistance (Case & Lewis, 2012).

Focus on privilege and marginalization due to power differentials across social categories, not privileged or marginalized individuals.

“Move away from binary ways of thinking” (Banks & Pliner, 2012, p. 7)

Introduce social positionalities (e.g., young instructor of color) at the beginning of the course and talk about vulnerable feelings.

Focus on how complex relationships interplay in multiple contexts rather than dividing perpetrators and victims (e.g., White men students are the oppressor, and students of color and/or women are oppressed) in the classroom.

Incorporate context and history
Situate personal experiences of students or specific cases aligned with context and history.

Incorporate context and history that preempts students’ oversimplification of events and tendency to get stuck in their unique experiences (Rivera, 2017).

Link context and history to help students see how their individual issues are embedded in the system.

Situate US Black students’ experiences within a history of slavery and anti-black oppression.

Begin discussions with societal context, followed by the institutional, group, and then individual context (Rivera, 2017) so students can make connections on multiple levels.

Encourage students to connect the intertwined systems of oppression stemming from social categories (e.g., race, gender, sexuality, citizenship) and issues related to employment (Smele et al., 2017).

Challenge the social norms by unpacking power dynamics in society
Interrogate taken-for-granted assumptions embedded in the system and culture (e.g., meritocracy, neoliberal individualism)

Challenge metanarratives that minimize the difference between individuals, such as color blindness and the ideology of sameness (Pliner et al., 2012).

“[A]nalyze power in teaching about intersectional theory, pushing the boundaries of teaching multiculturalism, diversity, oppression, and discrimination.” (Case, 2017, p. 9)

Induce students to raise questions that have been regarded as unquestionable. The questions should ultimately “aim to cover invisible intersections.” (Case, 2017, p. 9)

Respect students’ opinions and also listen carefully to students’ questions and support them in developing intersectional viewpoints.

Address both privilege and oppression
Include privilege as an essential part of teaching intersectionality (Case, 2013, 2017).

Acknowledge that individuals can be both privileged and marginalized when all personal identities are considered (Jones & Wijeyesinghe, 2011).

Recognize that IP is for all students, including both those historically excluded and privileged.

Encourage students to consider “not just the ways we are impacted negatively by inequality but also how our privilege perpetuates inequality” (Banks & Pliner, 2012, p. 3).

Emphasize the definition of privilege, focusing on the invisibility of privilege, and teach privilege across a wide variety of oppressions (Case, 2013).

Deconstruct existing theories and practices
Deconstruct feminist theories and practices largely led by middle and upper-class White women and have neglected the experiences of women from the Global South (Kurtis & Adams, 2017).

Decolonize dominant discourses of feminist theories and recenter the life and voice of the women from the Global South in the feminist discourse.

Use such practices to help reframe the dominant theories and practices in adult education and learning.

Revisit race issues through recentering the origin of intersectionality (Black feminism), and challenge the Whitening of intersectionality or flattening of diversity through a universalized approach to intersectionality (Smele et al., 2017).

Connect to social change
Do not restrict IP to theory.

“Promote social action to dismantle oppression through student learning that extends beyond the classroom walls” (Case, 2017, p. 9).

Emphasize that IP does not satisfy merely awakening the awareness of students and should accompany students’ social justice activism.

Connect all discourses and implications to social change (Case, 2017; Jones & Wijeyesinghe, 2011).

Remain cautious not to be buried in individual experiences and strive to direct toward social and system levels of transformation.

Strategies of IP

Instructors in HE have developed strategies for IP, which have been integrated into the course design, materials, assignments, and class activities. Thus, the following section introduces how instructors might enact the principles of IP by utilizing the strategies outlined in Figure 1. Instructors can integrate these principles into their preferred curriculum design models (e.g., ADDIE, Andragogy, curriculum maps, problem-based learning, and others).

Figure 1.
Strategies of intersectional pedagogy.

Infusing IP throughout Course Design

IP infuses intersectionality throughout the course design by building a course composed of integrated and dependent topics. Case and Rios’s (2017) practice of an undergraduate women's studies course is an exemplar. When teaching the “Introduction to Women's Studies, Psychology of Women” (p. 83) course, they set a learning goal “to use the social constructivist paradigm as an approach to understanding the meaning and intersections of constructs such as gender, women, man, race, class, sexual orientation.” (p. 85) Infusing IP, they developed modules comprised of various topics by week, such as culture, education, employment, relationships, violence, and physical health. They approached each week's topic from the intersectional lens (see pp. 86–88 for detail).

Incorporating IP into course design benefits students. First, students realize how different identities and social categories are closely intertwined. Since students learn integrated topics integrating intersectionality, they learn to understand the complex nature of oppression. Also, IP course design is preferable as it evades a discrete approach—the practice of designing modules with discrete, independent subtopics or social identity categories (e.g., gender for one week and race for the next). The discrete approach is problematic because it utilizes the “add-on” (p. 144) formula at the curriculum level dividing core knowledge and peripheral knowledge (Davis, 2010). Students are likely to think unconsciously that the topics usually displayed at the front of the modules (e.g., class, race, gender) are the main themes in understanding EDID. In contrast, topics that are relatively presented late (e.g., sexual orientation, disability, age, appearance, immigration status, marital status, religion) are likely to be recognized as the backgrounds.

Integrating IP through Course Materials

IP can be integrated into course materials, such as reading and visuals, by intentionally selecting reading materials from an intersectional viewpoint (Baylina Ferré & Rodó de Zárate, 2016; Mahrouse, 2016). For example, foregrounding materials about marginalized groups of women destabilizes students’ stereotypes of women as a gender-only topic and denaturalizes gender discourses only illuminating privileged women. Besides reading materials, visual materials (e.g., films, news, interview videos) help connect theories with current events and historical contexts and approach intersectionality transnationally (Case & Lewis, 2012; 2017; Mahrouse, 2016). By watching videos from decolonial feminist activists or films revealing the life stories of women from the Global South, students potentially “achieve an understanding of transnational and intersectional feminism in ways that effectively teach about the simultaneity of identities, bodies, and institutions within globalization” (Mahrouse, 2016, p. 238). Additionally, videos, news stories, or essays on current real-world events can be included as materials to connect with and explore practical applications of intersectionality (Case & Rios, 2017). Students are encouraged to critically analyze visual or reading materials (e.g., news, film) from an intersectional perspective, which helps increase their intersectional consciousness (Case & Lewis, 2017; McQueeney, 2016).

Building IP through Class Activities and Course Assignments

Building IP means designing using an intersectional perspective across various class activities and assignments. Dialogue and discussion (Atehortúa, 2020; Case & Lewis, 2012; 2017; Lee, 2012; McCarthy & Larson, 2012; Rivera, 2017; Smele et al., 2017; Wallin-Ruschman et al., 2020) help promote inductive, emancipatory, and narrative learning. Instructors had different opinions about how much students should be allowed to talk about personal experiences. For instance, Pliner et al. (2012) recommended restricting conversation about personal experiences (e.g., my sister is lesbian) since other students who don’t have similar experiences may be silent or feel that they have nothing to do. However, Rivera (2017) recommended navigating difficult dialogues even though dialogue about EDID topics can bring microaggressions or tensions between students.

Writing a reflection paper is another common IP method to help students reflect on their privilege (Case, 2017; Case & Rios, 2017; Lee, 2012; Pliner et al., 2012; Smele et al., 2017 Wallin-Ruschman et al., 2020). Critical self-reflection is strongly recommended in IP, especially accompanying a critique of the structural system of oppression (Espostio & Happel, 2012). When writing a reflection paper, students may think deeply about their experiences connecting with systemic privilege and oppression in society. Instructors reported that the reflection paper was useful when students were impelled by strong emotions (Smele et al., 2017).

Embodied learning through activities and assignments that engage students in moving their own bodies is a noticeable strategy of IP (Case & Lewis, 2012, 2017; Smele et al., 2017; Wallin-Ruschman et al., 2020). For example, Smele et al. (2017) tried a “calling out” activity, challenging students who showed a lack of insight or concern about issues of privilege, in which they are confronted by peers and urged to check their privilege (see p. 698 for detail). Case and Lewis (2017) assigned students a photovoice project, prompting them to take personal photos representing their intersections of identities associated with positionalities or conceptual images, describing the intersectionality and matrix of privilege and oppression.

Students’ imperialist and privileged ways of knowing can be interrogated in class through role-playing (McQueeney, 2016; Robinson et al., 2016). In the role-plays of McQueeney's (2016) class, students whose role was an ally had to educate other students whose roles were trying to mistreat targeted groups. In the exercise of Robinson et al.'s (2016, p. 512) class, students received an identity card (e.g., “35 years old refugee woman who recently arrived from the Congo under the Women at Risk International Program”) and responded to a series of the statement (e.g., “I can get a loan when I need extra money”) by student facilitator. Through the exercises, students could reflect on actions that allies could take and put themselves into others’ shoes by facing situations from others’ viewpoints.

Challenges of IP

Instructors reported several challenges when they tried to practice IP. The challenges can be classified into individual and structural levels (see Figure 2). The representative individual-level challenge in IP is student resistance stemming from psychological barriers such as implicit bias and defense mechanisms (Simon et al., 2022). Specifically, McQueeney (2016) mentioned that White heterosexual, cisgender students, especially those affected by post-feminist, post-racial, or conservative Christian discourses, tended to show more steadfast resistance. Similarly, Smele et al. (2017) also reported that some White students tended to speak about reverse racism they experienced and be defensive about White supremacy. This privileged student resistance contrasted with students from marginalized groups who tended to be afraid of reinforcing stereotypes against them (McQueeney, 2016). Meanwhile, Rivera (2017) mentioned that instructors’ identities and social positionality should also be considered because students accused instructors from marginalized groups of infusing political agendas in the class and obstructing their learning rights.

Figure 2.
Challenges of intersectional pedagogy.

Further, Davis (2010) found privileged students’ habits of imperialistic knowing—the “mirroring effect” and “touristic imaginary” (p. 137), and the students’ habits were demonstrated as resistance not to accept the instructor's IP in the classroom. Whereas the mirroring effect refers to “the unacknowledged expectation that course materials will centrally illuminate the experiences of a dominant subject identity represented demographically by the majority of student[s] in the classroom,” the touristic imaginary refers to “the desire of this student group to encounter a racial and/or global Other in ways that do not disturb or critically engage their privilege” (p. 145). Both habits were based on their epistemological logic that was formed in constructing the self-identity within the history of imperialism.

These individual-level challenges can be connected to broader levels (e.g., institutional, societal, and system level). Espostio and Happel (2012) encouraged challenging pervasive social and educational metanarratives. For example, the meritocracy narrative emphasizes the hard work of working-class White students or students of color and their families, and how their hard work should pay off, while ignoring the role of structural webs of social, political, and institutional power. Meanwhile, some students equated or hierarchized oppression by neglecting the qualitatively different extent of oppression. To illustrate, some White students who denied White supremacy thought that racialized oppression experienced by people of color was similar to the pressure Whites received from their appearance (e.g., tattoos, dress, or piercings). These metanarratives were invisible but powerful barriers for instructors to build IP in the classroom. Additionally, locating gender and race at the center of their social identities while regarding other identities (e.g., sexual orientation, disability, nationality) as tangential was also problematic since it tends to exclude the ontology of multiply-marginalized others (e.g., disabled immigrant lesbian).

Meanwhile, Smele et al. (2017) attributed student resistance or fear to the neoliberal diversity regime embedded in current universities. Smele et al. (2017) emphasized, “[t]he potential for student discomfort in critical learning classrooms conflicts with the ‘diversity’ values of neoliberal universities where the ideals of the ‘happy’ student cum-consumer are promoted within sanitized notions of ‘safe’ classroom learning.” (p. 697) Given this regime in HE, both individual and institutional pressure may enhance the difficulty of practicing IP in class.

Designing AE and HRD Graduate Courses with IP

Discussion of course design has been present in the AE and HRD literature since at least the early 2000s. Although some studies (e.g., Kuchinke, 2002, 2007; Lim et al., 2013; Lim & Rager, 2015) did not focus on EDID in designing the course, many instructors in the fields have been illuminating how to promote EDID in AE and HRD education from a more critical perspective (e.g., Alfred et al., 2020; Alfred & Chlup, 2010; Armitage, 2010; Baumgartner & Johnson-Bailey, 2008; Bierema, 2010; Bohonos et al., 2019; Bohonos & Duff, 2020; Chapman & Gedro, 2009; Collins, 2013, 2017; Gedro, 2010; Gold & Bratton, 2014; Isaac-Savage & Merriweather, 2021; Lawless et al., 2012; Merriam & Bierema, 2014; Thomas et al., 2010). Also, the American Association for Adult and Continuing Education developed Standards for Graduate Programs in Adult Education, recommending topics covering diversity and equity and social, political, and economic forces shaping the discourses and foundations in AE in graduate education programs (AAACE, 2014).

Several HRD studies accentuated the significance of designing courses from a critical perspective. For example, some studies integrated CP into critical HRD and developed concepts such as “critical HRD pedagogy” (Armitage, 2010) and “critical HRD education” (Gold & Bratton, 2014) to interrogate instrumentalism within the field and situate education within a more socioeconomic context. Lawless et al. (2012) found that students in the critical HRD graduate course could develop alternative subject positions, such as emancipatory practitioners.

Also, Collins’s (2013) model and Merriam and Bierema's (2014) framework are notable in considering teaching methods. Collins’s (2013) model shows three steps: (a) illustrate why critical perspective matters (e.g., from news, statistics, narratives, or case studies); (b) question norms and invisible rules through probing questions; and (c) create space by integrating new and established perspectives through written assignments or creative projects (see p. 508 for detail). Also, Merriam and Bierema (2014) suggested three aspects of being critical—critical theory as a philosophy, critical thinking as a thought of process, and critical action as a mindful and timely intervention—that should be included in AE (see p. 214 for detail). Educators might refer to their suggestions in conceiving specific teaching strategies. For instance, they can consider designing a course integrating intersectionality theory, thinking, and action by demonstrating why intersectional perspective matters, asking provocative questions, and creating space to raise intersectional consciousness through course materials and assignments.

Similar to IP instructors, critical AE and HRD scholars have agreed that the purpose of AE and HRD education should promote social justice (Alfred et al., 2020; Bierema, 2010; Bohonos et al., 2019). Although some studies concentrated on the specific identity topics that should have been taught but were relatively neglected in the AE and HRD curriculum, such as race (e.g., Alfred & Chlup, 2010; Baumgartner & Johnson-Bailey, 2008; Bohonos & Duff, 2020; Isaac-Savage & Merriweather, 2021) and sexual orientation (e.g., Chapman & Gedro, 2009; Gedro, 2010), calls for future research center on the intersectional approach in education and designing courses (e.g., Bohonos et al., 2019). Still, only a few studies (e.g., Bierema, 2010; Collins, 2017; Thomas et al., 2010) showed and proposed an intersectional approach to their research about designing AE and HRD courses.

To begin with, Thomas et al. (2010) suggested an “intersectionality identity model” in teaching diversity, contrasted with a group-based diversity course model composed of modules by discrete groups (e.g., race, sex, sexuality). Thomas et al. (2010) criticized using the traditional group-based method in designing courses because it “highlights differences in a way that promote[s] us-them thinking” (p. 302). By reinforcing the Otherness of historically marginalized group members, the group-based method will likely promote resistance and essentialism while negating the complexes and intersections of diversity (Thomas et al., 2010). As an alternative, they proposed theme-oriented EDID courses (e.g., diversity training, management) rather than Other-oriented (e.g., women, people of color, people with disabilities, immigrants). The theme-oriented courses also consider instructors’ identity, diversity of voices, and strategic integration of majority allies, which invites all students, regardless of their identity, to learn intersectionality.

Research with the IP approach in AE and HRD fields also accentuated recognizing privilege in preparing and designing the course. For example, Bierema (2010) explored how to prepare instructors as actors behaving to achieve justice through their classes and pedagogy and presented competencies for teaching diversity in HE, including recognizing privilege, positionality, and oppression. Collins (2017) led the “Buying Privilege” activity in his class teaching diversity and inclusion. In the activity, the students were given a list of privileges (e.g., White, heterosexual, cisgender, male) and asked to decide which privileges they would purchase paying (fake) money. Since students needed to choose specific privileges, they could reflect on and discuss their assumptions on the hierarchy of privilege. These studies are aligned with the principle of IP that the class should address both privilege and oppression for students to fully understand intersectionality.

Based on the results, this paper suggests an example of a course plan with IP (see Table 2). The graduate AE and HRD course should consist of theme-oriented modules, as the instructors recommended (e.g., Case & Rios, 2017; Thomas et al., 2010). We also recommend starting with an understanding of intersectionality and metanarratives (e.g., privilege, power, and stereotype) before narrowing down to specific topics in order to develop students’ awareness on their positionalities and organizational phenomena in greater society (Armitage, 2010; Bierema, 2010; Gold & Bratton, 2014; Lee, 2012). IP is differentiated from modules with Other-oriented topics separately focusing on each historically excluded group (Thomas et al., 2010). When designing a course, instructors need to keep in mind the seven principles of IP elaborated on earlier in this article.

Table 2.
An Example of an AE and HRD Graduate Course Plan.

Module Topics and Learning Materials Notes for Instructors Assignments

M0 Introduction
Share positionality

Open vulnerability

Invite students to share their positionality

M1 What is intersectionality:
Crenshaw (1989; 1991), Collins and Bilge (2020), Crenshaw (2016)
Design a safer classroom

Incorporate context and history

Write a positionality paper

Create a family career tree/genealogy

M2 Interlocking systems of oppression:
Acker (2006), Collins (1990)
Challenge the norm and unpack power dynamics in organizations

Address both privilege and marginalization

Write a reflection paper on privilege

Take photographs documenting power, privilege, and marginalization

Privilege, power dynamics, taken-for-granted assumptions, master narratives, bias, prejudice, and stereotypes: Chugh (2018), McIntosh (1990)

M3 Challenges and systemic barriers of historically excluded groups:
Adikaram (2018), Hirudayaraj and Clay (2019), Dill and Zambrana (2009)
Raise intersectional consciousness

Encourage embodied learning

Facilitate dialogue

Engage in a case study on multiply-marginalized groups

Practice dialogical communication

M4 Intersectional intervention in the workplace and society:
Liu (2021), Tulshyan (2022)
Deconstruct existing theories and practices

Process a case study on intersectional intervention

Critique theories and practices

M5 Intersectionality research and pedagogy:
Case (2017), Rodriguez et al. (2016)
Connect all discourses and implications with social change

Write a theory paper

Identify metanarratives

Social justice, solidarity, and emancipation: Tormos (2017), Moradi and Grzanka (2017)

Further, each week of the course may provide corresponding reading and visual materials related to intersectionality at work, and each class might include activities and assignments raising intersectional viewpoints, such as role-play, dialogue, critical analysis of the media and video materials, and writing a privilege reflection paper. Instructors should try to provide diverse materials and facilitate multiple ways of knowing through activities that accompany embodied, inductive, emancipatory, and narrative learning. A reflection paper that recommends writing their privilege would be helpful to reflect on their positionality in a different way.

Lastly, IP instructors should understand adult learners’ resistance from a broader perspective. Resistance may not only come from their identities but also from the metanarratives and discourses (e.g., meritocracy, color blindness, and post-feminist and post-racial discourse), embodied and internalized privilege and neoliberalism, and institutionalized systems of inequity. It is recommended that instructors use devise strategies to address resistance. Note that applying this integrative approach to IP is applicable to a range of topics and introducing intersectionality into them.

Discussion and Conclusion

This article presented a literature review introducing IP as an educational intervention to help learners develop a social justice consciousness about interlocking systems of oppression that create injustice at individual, group, and societal levels. Covering key definitions, principles, and practices, this review offers a primer for infusing IP into course designs. The article finished with an example of building IP into course designs of any topic by examining the ways identities intersect, create marginalization or privilege, and can be challenged through critical thinking, discourse, assignments, and potential action. These best practices in IP are offered as a way of actualizing Freire's (2018) point, “There is no such thing as neutral education. Education either functions as an instrument to bring about conformity or freedom” (p. 219). We view IP as a crucial catalyst of freedom educators in AE and HRD should understand and practice.

Future AE and HRD instructors and researchers committed to addressing social inequities and inspiring learners toward social action and change can do so by developing and enacting IP in their classrooms and sharing their practices and reflections as critical educators. Educators might refer to our findings in conceiving specific teaching strategies. However, the presented study results (e.g., IP principles, practices, and an example of course design) cannot be standardized or generalized regardless of national, institutional, or classroom contexts. IP should be relational and contextual, which means each instructor has to ponder specific IP strategies considering time, place, and learners in the classroom to maximize the effect of IP.

Critical AE and HRD educators have called for future research to center on the intersectional approach in education and designing courses (e.g., Bohonos et al., 2019). We believe infusing IP in AE and HRD graduate education will respond to the call and contribute to eradicating social injustice and promoting EDID. Intersectional gaze requires insurgent scholars who try new methods to advance intersectional research (Cho et al., 2013). We are hopeful that AE and HRD scholars’ continuous efforts to develop pedagogical methods to build intersectional mindsets and solidarity among adult professionals promote social change and equity.

Principles	Descriptions	Examples
Raise intersectional consciousness	Advocate for students to become change agents who make a difference in society by raising their intersectional consciousness and acting on their knowledge. Build intersectional consciousness—awareness that individual experiences, interpersonal relationships, and social phenomena stem from interlocking systems of oppression, which accompany critical action to interrogate the system. Recognize how intersectional consciousness recognizes micro (e.g., individual and interpersonal), meso (e.g., institutional and organizational), and macro (e.g., national and global) levels of inequity and injustice are closely interrelated.	Encourage students to develop multilevel lenses, for instance: harassment against women of color from the working class (micro level), and the pay gap due to gender, race, and position (meso level), global phenomena that have a disproportionately negative impact on Global South (macro level) Consider aggressions originating from interlocking systems of oppression, such as capitalism, colonialism, heteropatriarchy, sexism, racism, and others.
Share positionality and open vulnerability as the instructor	Set an example by initially sharing vulnerability and positionality so students feel safer revealing their positionality and vulnerability (Smele et al., 2017). Reveal personal privileged or oppressed identities to influence the class, which might decrease students’ resistance (Case & Lewis, 2012). Focus on privilege and marginalization due to power differentials across social categories, not privileged or marginalized individuals. “Move away from binary ways of thinking” (Banks & Pliner, 2012, p. 7)	Introduce social positionalities (e.g., young instructor of color) at the beginning of the course and talk about vulnerable feelings. Focus on how complex relationships interplay in multiple contexts rather than dividing perpetrators and victims (e.g., White men students are the oppressor, and students of color and/or women are oppressed) in the classroom.
Incorporate context and history	Situate personal experiences of students or specific cases aligned with context and history. Incorporate context and history that preempts students’ oversimplification of events and tendency to get stuck in their unique experiences (Rivera, 2017). Link context and history to help students see how their individual issues are embedded in the system.	Situate US Black students’ experiences within a history of slavery and anti-black oppression. Begin discussions with societal context, followed by the institutional, group, and then individual context (Rivera, 2017) so students can make connections on multiple levels. Encourage students to connect the intertwined systems of oppression stemming from social categories (e.g., race, gender, sexuality, citizenship) and issues related to employment (Smele et al., 2017).
Challenge the social norms by unpacking power dynamics in society	Interrogate taken-for-granted assumptions embedded in the system and culture (e.g., meritocracy, neoliberal individualism) Challenge metanarratives that minimize the difference between individuals, such as color blindness and the ideology of sameness (Pliner et al., 2012). “[A]nalyze power in teaching about intersectional theory, pushing the boundaries of teaching multiculturalism, diversity, oppression, and discrimination.” (Case, 2017, p. 9)	Induce students to raise questions that have been regarded as unquestionable. The questions should ultimately “aim to cover invisible intersections.” (Case, 2017, p. 9) Respect students’ opinions and also listen carefully to students’ questions and support them in developing intersectional viewpoints.
Address both privilege and oppression	Include privilege as an essential part of teaching intersectionality (Case, 2013, 2017). Acknowledge that individuals can be both privileged and marginalized when all personal identities are considered (Jones & Wijeyesinghe, 2011). Recognize that IP is for all students, including both those historically excluded and privileged. Encourage students to consider “not just the ways we are impacted negatively by inequality but also how our privilege perpetuates inequality” (Banks & Pliner, 2012, p. 3).	Emphasize the definition of privilege, focusing on the invisibility of privilege, and teach privilege across a wide variety of oppressions (Case, 2013).
Deconstruct existing theories and practices	Deconstruct feminist theories and practices largely led by middle and upper-class White women and have neglected the experiences of women from the Global South (Kurtis & Adams, 2017). Decolonize dominant discourses of feminist theories and recenter the life and voice of the women from the Global South in the feminist discourse. Use such practices to help reframe the dominant theories and practices in adult education and learning.	Revisit race issues through recentering the origin of intersectionality (Black feminism), and challenge the Whitening of intersectionality or flattening of diversity through a universalized approach to intersectionality (Smele et al., 2017).
Connect to social change	Do not restrict IP to theory. “Promote social action to dismantle oppression through student learning that extends beyond the classroom walls” (Case, 2017, p. 9). Emphasize that IP does not satisfy merely awakening the awareness of students and should accompany students’ social justice activism. Connect all discourses and implications to social change (Case, 2017; Jones & Wijeyesinghe, 2011).	Remain cautious not to be buried in individual experiences and strive to direct toward social and system levels of transformation.

Module	Topics and Learning Materials	Notes for Instructors	Assignments
M0	Introduction	Share positionality Open vulnerability	Invite students to share their positionality
M1	What is intersectionality: Crenshaw (1989; 1991), Collins and Bilge (2020), Crenshaw (2016)	Design a safer classroom Incorporate context and history	Write a positionality paper Create a family career tree/genealogy
M2	Interlocking systems of oppression: Acker (2006), Collins (1990)	Challenge the norm and unpack power dynamics in organizations Address both privilege and marginalization	Write a reflection paper on privilege Take photographs documenting power, privilege, and marginalization
Privilege, power dynamics, taken-for-granted assumptions, master narratives, bias, prejudice, and stereotypes: Chugh (2018), McIntosh (1990)
M3	Challenges and systemic barriers of historically excluded groups: Adikaram (2018), Hirudayaraj and Clay (2019), Dill and Zambrana (2009)	Raise intersectional consciousness Encourage embodied learning Facilitate dialogue	Engage in a case study on multiply-marginalized groups Practice dialogical communication
M4	Intersectional intervention in the workplace and society: Liu (2021), Tulshyan (2022)	Deconstruct existing theories and practices	Process a case study on intersectional intervention Critique theories and practices
M5	Intersectionality research and pedagogy: Case (2017), Rodriguez et al. (2016)	Connect all discourses and implications with social change	Write a theory paper Identify metanarratives
Social justice, solidarity, and emancipation: Tormos (2017), Moradi and Grzanka (2017)

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Eunbi Sim

Author Biographies

Eunbi Sim is a Ph.D. student in the Learning, Leadership, and Organization Development program at the University of Georgia. Her research interests include critical human resource development, critical pedagogy, intersectionality, and mixed-methods research. She holds a bachelor's degree from Kyungpook National University and a master's degree from Seoul National University. She serves as a student representative of the Workforce Diversity and Inclusion Special Interest Group in the Academy of Human Resource Development (AHRD) and the Korean AHRD in the Americas (KAHRDA).

Laura L. Bierema is a Professor and Program Coordinator of the Adult Learning, Leadership, and Organization Development program at the University of Georgia (Athens, USA), where she is Founder and Co-director of the Graduate Certificate in Organization Coaching. Her research focuses on applying critical, feminist lenses to leadership, women's learning and career development, organization development, and developmental relationships. The author of nine books and more than 100 chapters and articles, she is the recipient of multiple awards for her scholarship and contributions.

References

Acker

(2006). Inequality regimes: Gender, class, and race in organizations. Gender & Society, 20(4), 441‐464. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243206289499

Adikaram

A. S.

(2018). An opportunity for other men and a threat to other women’: Workplace harassment at the intersection of marital status and gender in Sri Lanka. Human Resource Development International, 21(3), 186‐211. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2017.1413877

Alfred

M. V.

Chlup

D. T.

(2010). Making the invisible, visible: Race matters in human resource development. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 12(3), 332‐351. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422310375027

Alfred

M. V.

Ray

S. M.

Zarestky

(2020). HRD and social justice: Education in support of the UN sustainable development goals. New Horizons in Adult Education and Human Resource Development, 32(4), 4‐16. https://doi.org/10.1002/nha3.20293

Alvarez-Hernandez

L. R.

(2020). Teaching note—teaching intersectionality across the social work curriculum using the intersectionality analysis cluster. Journal of Social Work Education, 57(1), 181‐188. https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2020.1713944

American Association for Adult and Continuing Education (AAACE) (2014, November). Standards for Graduate Programs in Adult Education. AAACE.

Anderson

Riley

(2021). Crafting safer spaces for teaching about race and intersectionality in Australian indigenous studies. The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 50(2), 229‐236. https://doi.org.10.1017/jie.2020.8

Armitage

(2010). From sentimentalism towards a critical HRD pedagogy. Journal of European Industrial Training, 34(8-9), 735‐752. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090591011080940

Asare

J. G.

(2023, March 18). Private women’s membership group, Chief, is being called out for White feminism. Forbes. https://www-forbes-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/www.forbes.com/sites/janicegassam/2023/03/18/private-womens-membership-group-chief-is-being-called-out-for-White-feminism/amp/.

10.

Atehortúa

J. V.

(2020). A decolonial pedagogy for teaching intersectionality. Nordic Journal of Comparative and International Education, 4(1), 156‐171. https://doi.org/10.7577/njcie.3555

11.

Banks

C. A.

Pliner

S. M.

(2012). Introduction. In Pliner

S. M.

Banks

C. A.

(Eds.), Teaching, learning, and intersecting identities in higher education (pp. 1‐13). Peter Lang.

12.

Baumgartner

L. M.

Johnson-Bailey

(2008). Fostering awareness of diversity and multiculturalism in adult and higher education. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2008(120), 45‐53. https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.315

13.

Baylina Ferré

Rodó de Zárate

(2016). New visual methods for teaching intersectionality from a spatial perspective in a geography and gender course. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 40(4), 608‐620. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098265.2016.1218828

14.

Bierema

L. L.

(2010). Diversity education: Competencies and strategies for educators. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 12(3), 312‐331. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422310375024

15.

Bohonos

Duff

M. C.

(2020). Adult education in racialized spaces: How white supremacy and white privilege hinder social justice in adult education. Dialogues in Social Justice: An Adult Education Journal, 5(2), 27‐46. https://doi.org/10.55370/dsj.v5i(2).867

16.

Bohonos

J. W.

Otchere

K. D.

Pak

Y. K.

(2019). Teaching and learning social justice in human resource development graduate programs: Preparation for research and practice. New Horizons in Adult Education and Human Resource Development, 31(4), 18‐35. https://doi.org/10.1002/nha3.20262

17.

Burns

V. L.

(2020). Utilizing intersectional pedagogy in a campus sexual assault course. Women & Therapy, 43(3–4), 389‐399. https://doi.org/10.1080/02703149.2020.1729471

18.

Byrd

M. Y.

(2014). Diversity issues: Exploring “Critical” through multiple lenses. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 16, 515–528. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422314544297

19.

Callahan

J. L.

(2010). Constructing a manuscript: Distinguishing integrative literature reviews and conceptual and theory articles. Human Resource Development Review, 9(3), 300‐304. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484310371492

20.

Case

K. A.

(2013). Beyond diversity and whiteness. In Case

K. A.

(Ed.), Deconstructing privilege: Teaching and learning as allies in the classroom (pp. 1‐14). Routledge.

21.

Case

K. A.

(2017). Toward an intersectional pedagogy model: Engaged learning for social justice. In Case

K. A.

(Ed.), Intersectional pedagogy: Complicating identity and social justice (pp. 1‐24). Routledge.

22.

Case

K. A.

Lewis

M. K.

(2012). Teaching intersectional LGBT psychology: Reflections from historically black and hispanic-serving universities. Psychology & Sexuality, 3(3), 260‐276. https://doi.org/10.1080/19419899.2012.700030

23.

Case

K. A.

Lewis

M. K.

(2017). Teaching intersectional psychology in racially diverse settings. In Case

K. A.

(Ed.), Intersectional pedagogy: Complicating identity and social justice (pp. 129‐149). Routledge.

24.

Case

K. A.

Rios

(2017). Infusing intersectionality: Complicating the psychology of women course. In Case

K. A.

(Ed.), Intersectional pedagogy: Complicating identity and social justice (pp. 82‐109). Routledge.

25.

Chapman

D. D.

Gedro

(2009). Queering the HRD curriculum: Preparing students for success in the diverse workforce. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 11(1), 95‐108. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422308329091

26.

Cho

Crenshaw

K. W.

McCall

(2013). Toward a field of intersectionality studies: Theory, applications, and praxis. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 38(4), 785‐810. https://doi.org/10.1086/669608

27.

Chugh

(2018). The person you mean to be: How good people fight bias. Harper Business.

28.

Collins

J. C.

(2013). Illustrating relevance, questioning norms, and creating space: Three steps for teaching critical perspectives in the HRD classroom. Human Resource Development Review, 12(4), 500‐511. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484313492334

29.

Collins

J. C.

(2017). Leveraging three lessons learned from teaching an HRD undergraduate diversity and inclusion course: An autoethnography of one professor’s perceptions. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 19(2), 157‐175. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422317695227

30.

Collins

P. H.

(1990). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment. Routledge.

31.

Collins

P. H.

Bilge

(2020). Intersectionality (2nd ed.). Polity.

32.

Cooper

(2016). Intersectionality. In Disch

Hawkesworth

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of feminist theory (pp. 385‐406). Oxford University Press.

33.

Crenshaw

(2016, November 14). The urgency of intersectionality. [Video] TED. https://www.ted.com/talks/kimberle_crenshaw_the_urgency_of_intersectionality#t-486851.

34.

Crenshaw

(1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989, 139‐168.

35.

Crenshaw

(1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241‐1300. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229039

36.

Davis

D. R.

(2010). Unmirroring pedagogies: Teaching with intersectional and transnational methods in the women and gender studies classroom. Feminist Formations, 22(1), 136‐162. https://doi.org/10.1353/nwsa.0.0120

37.

Dill

B. T.

Zambrana

R. E.

(Eds.) (2009). Emerging intersections: Race, class, and gender in theory, policy, and practice. Rutgers University Press.

38.

Espostio

Happel

(2012). Oprah and Obama made it, why can't everyone else? Utilizing intersectional pedagogy to challenge post-racial ideologies within the higher education classroom. In Pliner

S. M.

Banks

C. A.

(Eds.), Teaching, learning, and intersecting identities in higher education (pp. 131‐147). Peter Lang.

39.

Freire

(1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Seabury Press.

40.

Freire

(2018). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Bloomsbury Academic.

41.

Gedro

(2010). Understanding, designing, and teaching LGBT issues. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 12(3), 352‐366. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422310375029

42.

Gold

Bratton

(2014). Towards critical human resource development education (CHRDE): Using the sociological imagination to make the HRD profession more critical in the post-crisis era. Human Resource Development International, 17(4), 400‐415. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2014.928135

43.

Grzanka

P. R.

(2020). From buzzword to critical psychology: An invitation to take intersectionality seriously. Women & Therapy, 43(3–4), 244‐261. https://doi.org/10.1080/02703149.2020.1729473

44.

Hirudayaraj

Clay

(2019). Experiences of women veterans within the private sector: Examining the intersection of gender and veteran status. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 30(4), 473‐494. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21367

45.

Isaac-Savage

E. P.

Merriweather

L. R.

(2021). Preparing adult educators for racial justice. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2021(170), 109‐118. https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.20430

46.

Jones

S. R.

Wijeyesinghe

C. L.

(2011). The promises and challenges of teaching from an intersectional perspective: Core components and applied strategies. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2011(125), 11‐20. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.429

47.

Kincheloe

J. L.

(2008). Critical pedagogy primer. Peter Lang.

48.

Kuchinke

K. P.

(2002). Institutional and curricular characteristics of leading graduate HRD programs in the United States. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 13(2), 127‐144. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.1019

49.

Kuchinke

K. P.

(2007). Birds of a feather? The critique of the north American business school and its implications for educating HRD practitioners. Human Resource Development Review, 6(2), 111‐126. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484307300175

50.

Kurtis

Adams

(2017). Intersectional pedagogy: Complicating identity and social justice (pp. 46–60). Routledge.

51.

Lawless

Sambrook

Stewart

(2012). Critical human resource development: Enabling alternative subject positions within a master of arts in human resource development educational programme. Human Resource Development International, 15(3), 321‐336. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2012.689214

52.

Lee

M. R.

(2012). Teaching gender and intersectionality: A dilemma and social justice approach. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 36(1), 110‐115. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684311426129

53.

Lim

D. H.

Rager

(2015). Perceived importance of curricular content of graduate HRD programs in the US. New Horizons in Adult Education and Human Resource Development, 27(2), 13‐27. https://doi.org/10.1002/nha3.20099

54.

Lim

D. H.

Song

J. H.

Choi

Kim

H. K.

(2013). A comparative analysis of graduate HRD curricular content between the United States and Korea. Human Resource Development International, 16(4), 441‐462. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2013.803752

55.

Liu

(2021). Redeeming leadership: An anti-racist feminist intervention. Bristol University Press.

56.

Mahrouse

(2016). Teaching intersectional and transnational feminisms through fiction and film. Feminist Teacher, 26(2–3), 233‐239. https://doi.org/10.5406/femteacher.26.2-3.0233

57.

May

V. M.

(2015). Pursuing Intersectionality, Unsettling Dominant Imaginaries (1st ed.). Routledge.

58.

McCarthy

Larson

L. M.

(2012). Using a pedagogy of intersectionality in the community college classroom. In Pliner

S. M.

Banks

C. A.

(Eds.), Teaching, learning, and intersecting identities in higher education (pp. 101‐115). Peter Lang.

59.

McIntosh

(1990). White privilege: Unpacking the invisible knapsack. https://www-jstor-org-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/community.30714426.

60.

McLaren

(2017). Critical pedagogy: A look at the major concepts. In Darder

Torres

R. D.

Baltodano

M. P.

(Eds.), The critical pedagogy reader (3rd ed., pp. 56‐78). Routledge.

61.

McQueeney

(2016). Teaching domestic violence in the new millennium: Intersectionality as a framework for social change. Violence Against Women, 22(12), 1463‐1475. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801215626808

62.

Merriam

S. B.

Bierema

L. L.

(2014). Adult learning: Bridging theory and practice. Jossey-Bass.

63.

Merrill

Fejes

(2018). Intersectionality and adult education. European Journal for Research on the Education and Learning of Adults, 9(1), 7‐11. https://doi.org/10.3384/rela.2000-7426.relae15

64.

Moradi

Grzanka

P. R.

(2017). Using intersectionality responsibly: Toward critical epistemology, structural analysis, and social justice activism. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 64(5), 500‐513. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000203

65.

Naples (2009). Teaching intersectionality intersectionally. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 11(4), 566‐577. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616740903237558

66.

Pliner

S. M.

Banks

CA,

(Eds.) (2012). Teaching, learning, and intersecting identities in higher education. Peter Lang.

67.

Pliner

S. M.

Banks

C. A.

Tapscott

A. M.

(2012). Intersectional pedagogy and transformative learning. In Pliner

S. M.

Banks

C. A.

(Eds.), Teaching, learning, and intersecting identities in higher education (pp. 148‐161). Peter Lang.

68.

Rivera

D. P.

(2017). Revealing hidden intersections of gender identity, sexual orientation, race, and ethnicity: Teaching about multiple oppressed identities. In Case

K. A.

(Ed.), Intersectional pedagogy: Complicating identity and social justice (pp. 172‐193). Routledge.

69.

Robinson

M. A.

Cross-Denny

Lee

K. K.

Werkmeister Rozas

L. M.

Yamada

A. M.

(2016). Teaching note—teaching intersectionality: Transforming cultural competence content in social work education. Journal of Social Work Education, 52(4), 509‐517. https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2016.1198297

70.

Rodriguez

J. K.

Holvino

Fletcher

J. K.

Nkomo

S. M.

(2016). The theory and praxis of intersectionality in work and organisations: Where do we go from here? Gender, Work and Organization, 23(3), 201‐222. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12131

71.

Simon

J. D.

Boyd

Subica

A. M.

(2022). Refocusing intersectionality in social work education: Creating a brave space to discuss oppression and privilege. Journal of Social Work Education, 58(1), 34‐45. https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2021.1883492

72.

Smele

Siew-Sarju

Chou

Breton

Bernhardt

(2017). Doing feminist difference differently: Intersectional pedagogical practices in the context of the neoliberal diversity regime. Teaching in Higher Education, 22(6), 690‐704. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2016.1273214

73.

Thomas

K. M.

Tran

N. M.

Dawson

B. L.

(2010). An inclusive strategy of teaching diversity. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 12(3), 295‐311. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422310375035

74.

Tormos

(2017). Intersectional solidarity. Politics, Groups, and Identities, 5(4), 707‐720. https://doi.org/10.1080/21565503.2017.1385494

75.

Torraco

R. J.

(2016). Writing integrative literature reviews: Using the past and present to explore the future. Human Resource Development Review, 15(4), 404‐428. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484316671606

76.

Toshalis

(2015). Make me!: Understanding and engaging student resistance in school. Harvard Education Press.

77.

Tulshyan

(2022). Inclusion on purpose: An intersectional approach to creating a culture of belonging at work. The MIT Press.

78.

United States Bureau of Labor Statistics (2016). Table 1. Employment status of the civilian noninstitutional population by disability status and selected characteristics, 2014 annual averages. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/disabl.t01.htm.

79.

Wallin-Ruschman

Richey

Case

Carns

(2020). Reflections and results from the intersections: Teaching and learning the praxis of intersectionality in the psychology classroom. Journal for Social Action in Counseling & Psychology, 12(1), 13‐26. https://doi.org/10.33043/JSACP.12.1.13-26

80.

World Health Organization (2021, March 9). Devastatingly pervasive: 1 in 3 women globally experience violence. World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/news/item/09-03-2021-devastatingly-pervasive-1-in-3-women-globally-experience-violence#:∼:text=Violence%20disproportionately%20affects%20women%20living,high%20as%201%20in%202.

81.

Yuval-Davis

(2006). Intersectionality and feminist politics. European Journal of Women's Studies, 13(3), 193‐209. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350506806065752