If Adorno Met Intersectionality Theory: Reconceiving the Method of Negative Case Analysis

Expanding Upon the Method of Negative Case Analysis.

Negative case analysis is “the critical analytic strategy for validity” (Hanson, 2017, p. 1, italics in original) because it can be used to uncover perspectives not yet represented in the data and create additional points of comparison that enhance the credibility, richness, and depth of qualitative analysis (Polit & Beck, 2017). Those perspectives would be considered negative cases because they are exceptions to that which has been uncovered up to that point of an investigation; it might be an exception that “proves” the rule or expands upon it, but it might also reveal a concept or category that lacks in robustness (Charmaz, 2014; Polit & Beck, 2017). As a qualitative research method that is routinely implemented near the end of data collection, negative case analysis guides the researcher in collecting additional data that can be used to test hunches, assess emergent concepts, and confirm the depth of the analysis (Polit & Beck, 2017). It could be likened to a detective chasing down a lead. When a piece of evidence is found that contradicts that which has been uncovered up to that point in the investigation, this signals to the investigator that there may be more to discover. A negative case might also be one that disproves the rule or something that the researcher assumed to be true. Negative case analysis can then be used to assist investigators who are interested in expanding their analyses to collect data that exists beyond limitations imposed by assumptions that risk inadvertently upholding some sort of rule. The method of negative case analysis can thus be expanded upon to reveal concepts and categories that lack robustness due to assumed ways of being within broader social contexts. In doing so, negative case analysis can be employed to meaningfully collect data on the perspectives of historically underrepresented groups. Rather than implementing it near the end of data collection, negative case analysis can, in its reconceived form, be used to purposefully recruit participants with diverse perspectives, maximize the potential for multiple points of comparison, substantiate the application of EDI in research design, and enhance the trustworthiness of qualitative findings in relation to populations that have been historically underrepresented. To reconceive negative case analysis, a philosophical expansion of the method will now be described.

Finding the Limitation in Adorno’s Thinking

Adorno (1973) rejected identity theory because he saw it as a primitive form of ideology that imposes universalizing social categories upon individuals in such a way that subjects could become opposed to—and, thus—negate one another through contradictory belief systems. Adorno saw identity theory as a necessary precursor for domination because it can provide false context for the limitations that are placed upon human agency. Under negative conditions, identities can be seen as constructs that carry “specific class relationships and interests” (Adorno, 1973, p. 354), and this shapes how groups and individuals interact in relation to the norms of dominant cultures. In this sense, oppositional subjectivities do not rely on one another to exist. Rather, it is the relations of power that rely upon oppositional subjectivities to exist. Adorno (1973) would want us to try to conceptualize the objects for what they are in and of themselves, not the reductive conceptualizations that society would deceive us into accepting for the purpose of domination. The rejection, or negation, of identity theory does, however, place limitations on such an analysis. The dialectic remains unresolved through negation; introducing Adorno’s stance on identity theory to Intersectionality Theory negates his rejection, contradicts the assertion that identity cannot be conceived in ways that appreciate irreducible complexity, and enables an exploration of experiences that are socially constructed in opposition to that which are assumed to be the rule.

Negating Adorno’s Stance on Identity Theory

Adorno’s (1973) stance on identity theory, which states that social identities are irreducibly complex and can work to uphold the naturalization of prevailing social conditions, is that categories of identity can be misappropriated to legitimate imbalanced power relations. Arrangements as such create negative conditions whereby the advantages of some individuals are reinforced through negatively affirming those who are already placed at a disadvantage. As a result, the persistence of power imbalances relies upon oppositional relationships. Those who are engaged through a power imbalance would remain in existence if the contradiction at the root of the oppositional relationship was resolved. Such a resolution does not have to negate existence, merely the contradiction that creates the opposition, but Adorno’s rejection of identity theory does not allow for an exploration of different perspectives that mutually constitute power relations. Contradictory perspectives can be complicated in such a way that avoids perpetuating opposition, power imbalances, and reducing social categories of identity in ways that create new social hierarchies or increase competition there within. As such, the differences, particularities, and variations in perspective within and between subjective realities can be meaningfully acknowledged using Intersectionality Theory.

Adornian negative cases address Adorno’s concerns about imposing universalizing social categories by conceiving identities as irreducibly complex and exploring the impact of imposing universalizing social categories. Through a critique of that which is constructed as the rule, Adornian negative cases bring forth alternative narratives that are obscured through imposed social categories. By challenging that which is assumed, the intent is to uncover perspectives not yet represented and create additional points of comparison. As such, subjectivities that are underrepresented, misrepresented, and rendered invisible by dominant cultures and part of a dialectical process whereby the interests of advantaged groups emerge from power relations are Adornian negative cases if they are also conceived by way of an appreciation of their irreducible complexity. Power relations can then be explored through ANCA using Intersectionality Theory because social structures operate through systems of privilege and converge upon individuals by way of imposing social categories and identities that are universalized, thus negating the breadth of experience there within. Interactions that arise from power relations as these place limitations on human agency so that the interests, superiority, and entitlement of some are protected; social categories are universalized so narratives that would challenge social norms can be positioned beyond the limitations of that which is constructed as normal, natural, or morally superior by dominant cultures (Adorno, 1973; Bourdieu, 1977; Nietzsche, 2003, 2010).

Cases that are negatively affirmed by dominant cultures, particularly those that are defined in relation to universalized social categories, may serve as the grist of analyses in addition to complicating understandings of social issues that might otherwise be reductively conceived because they operate beyond the limits of thought that are created and maintained by social norms. ANCA could thus interrogate for underlying assumptions that reinforce social norms. The ambiguity of searching for negative cases can result in importing them into the research process (Charmaz, 2014), but the abstraction of negative dialectics creates further challenges to bringing this methodological innovation into concretion (Adorno, 1973). For this reason, an objective phenomenon whereby negation is ongoing and thus unresolved will be used to demonstrate the application of ANCA. McCall’s (2005) three approaches to managing intersectional complexity will be used to demonstrate how this methodological innovation can be applied in qualitative research to illustrate how the embeddedness of EDI can be substantiated.

Applying Adornian Negative Case Analysis

Embedding EDI into research design was explored by the author with her supervisor and doctoral committee members during proposal development and through the conduction of her doctoral research, the latter of which was over the same period that this manuscript underwent revisions. The Constructivist Grounded Theory study is currently in the data analysis phase and substantive theory is being generated with the aim of furthering understanding on how primary healthcare services are delivered to 2SLGBTQ populations in the Canadian province of Nova Scotia. ANCA has evolved from being almost completely abstract in its description, which mirrors one of the major critiques of Adorno’s work, into its current iteration, which is both conceptual and practical, illustrating the utility of Intersectionality Theory in qualitative research. An outline of how ANCA can be applied constitutes the remainder of this article; it begins with description of how a diverse sample can be conceived, the limitations of the ANCA in the described study, and the process by which multiple points of comparison were created through the inclusion of as many perspectives as possible (maximum variation sampling) on the phenomenon under study.

Conceiving a Diverse Sample Population

Practically speaking, ANCA relies upon an intersectional lens to be used in qualitative research. Intersectionality Theory is recognized as a best practice for research that aims to imbed EDI (Government of Canada, 2020) as it is the lens through which a critique of systemic barriers that reinforce privileges and oppressions that sustain power relations over time comes about. Through an intersectional lens, ANCA seeks to explore social problems and engage in broadly inclusive analyses of differences between and within groups in a way that promotes an appreciation for irreducible complexity. This may enhance the application of research findings to diverse and equity-seeking populations because the analyses upon which findings emerge are grounded in the experience of a diverse sample population. To appreciate the variation in perspectives within a sample population, intersectional complexity needs to be managed so that differences are appreciated and so reduction and universalization are avoided. This management can be carried out methodologically so analyses can expand by way of the systematic inclusion of multiple dimensions of social life (McCall, 2005) by way of social categories of identity. Three approaches to managing intersectional complexity can serve to explore structurally embedded inequalities and were described as if they would be employed separately; however, to address the risk of oversimplifying complex social problems as it experienced by a described sample population, the approaches can be used in succession to outline and thus substantiate the inclusion of diverse perspectives by way of social categories of identity.

ANCA makes use of Intersectionality Theory by beginning with what McCall (2005) describes as the anti-categorical approach, which “deconstructs analytical categories […] [as] too irreducibly complex – overflowing with multiple and fluid terminations of both subjects and structures” (p. 1773). This acknowledgement is central to ANCA because recognizing identity as irreducibly complex is a necessary first step in creating multiple points of comparison for the purpose of qualitative analyses in a way that is equitable. To address social problems that emanate from social structures, historically underrepresented as well as overrepresented perspectives must be explored; dominant social categories are still included, but more effort is made to be inclusive of perspectives that have been historically disadvantaged through the universalization of social categories of identity. To enhance inclusivity, ANCA would thus seek to deconstruct power relations between categories of identity that are constructed in opposition to each other and attend to that which is constructed beyond social norms. In this context, inclusion does not mean tacking on new priority groups to those which have been historically prioritized, because it risks reproducing the social structures that underlie the issues that EDI aims to address and might actually increase competition among diverse and equity-seeking groups, which sustains the status quo (Davis et al., 2020).

Identifying anti-categories, or what Adorno (1973) called non-identities, is the starting point for ANCA because they promote the creation of multiple points of comparison between different perspectives, and thus challenge that which is assumed to be the rule. McCall’s (2005) inter- and intra-categorical approaches can then be employed to describe differences that exist within a sample population. Alternative narratives can be brought forth by complicating histories that have been obscured or oversimplified by dominant perspectives; by identifying that which is in opposition to a rule that is normatively constructed and maintained as such by power imbalances that benefit dominant groups, underrepresented perspectives can be included and described in ways that appreciate their irreducible complexity. Appreciating differences between perspectives (using the inter-categorical approach to managing intersectional complexity) would require an adoption of existing categories and involve exploration of defined “relationships of inequality among social groups and changing configurations of inequality along multiple and conflicting dimensions” (p. 1773). For example, there are multiple categories among 2SLGBTQ populations that can be appreciated using the inter-categorical approach; however, an exploration beyond sexual orientation and gender is required if an appreciation for the irreducible complexity of the social categories included in the analysis will come about. As such, to complicate analyses of Adornian negative cases, intra-categorical complexity would reveal differences within each of the adopted categories. This point of the analysis brings focus to “social groups at neglected points of intersection—‘people whose identity crosses the boundaries of traditionally constructed groups’—in order to reveal the complexity of lived experiences within such groups” (McCall, 2005, p. 1774). Continuing with the example of 2LSGBTQ populations that is fleshed out in more detail below, this would require pushing beyond sexual orientation and gender to uncover alternative narratives at underrepresented points of intersection, such as race, (dis)ability, and citizenship.

Defining the Limitations of an Adornian Negative Case Analysis

To acknowledge the limitations of an ANCA, categories of identity need to be described according to what is represented in a sample population. ANCA is not intended to be exhaustive of all social categories of identity within a sample, only those that have been defined, and thus outline the limitations of the analysis. The Constructivist Grounded Theory study whereby ANCA was conceived and explored can substantiate the inclusion of a diversity in perspective according to sexual orientation, gender, race, (dis)ability, and citizenship. The sample population (n = 30) in the study consisted of 2SLGBTQ-identified health service users (n = 10) and health service providers (n = 10), and non-2SLGBTQ-identified health service providers (n = 10).

Using the Anti-Categorical Approach in Adornian Negative Case Analysis

ANCA does not intend to capture the full range of experience held within a social category of identity; through employing the anti-categorical approach to managing intersectional complexity, it is acknowledged that such a task is not possible. Taking an anti-categorical stance involved a deconstruction of what “2SLGBTQ” is in and of itself. First, “2SLGBTQ” was identified as an anti-category because it is constructed in opposition to the rule of heterosexuality within heteronormative contexts. In so far as there is potential for infinite diversity within the social category of 2SLGBTQ because sexual orientation and gender cut across every population (Lane, 2020), this social category is an Adornian negative case because its underrepresentation, misrepresentation, and invisibilization comes about by way of heteronormative negation—it can be conceived as irreducibly complex—and in doing so, alternative variations (or narratives) of normal human sexuality and gender emerge. For the purpose of identifying the power relations central to this ANCA, 2SLGBTQ as a group of communities is often reductively conceptualized as that which it is not (heterosexual and gender normative); 2SLGBTQ and non-2SLGBTQ are thus mutually constituted through their negation of one another, but the former has been historically positioned as unnatural and morally inferior by heteronormative cultures, which are then used by the latter to gain advantages and sustain power imbalances. Outlining the sample population would begin with sexual orientation and gender but would then extend beyond these categories of identity to represent subgroups within the sample population and gain an appreciation for their complexity. The tension between privilege and oppression needs to be present in the analysis; being inclusive only to historically underrepresented groups may exclude important insights that come about through negative dialectics during data collection and analysis. Dominant categories of identity were left universalized because their positions of power rely on the reduction of social categories, including their own. The inclusion of dominant categories of identity is part of ANCA because the critique of dominant narratives cannot happen without the inclusion of dominant perspectives.

Using the Inter-Categorical Approach in Adornian Negative Case Analysis

The author’s first attempt at understanding the identities that potential participants would bring to the study involved a rudimentary tool that was created for the purpose of recruiting a diverse sample. Potential participants were asked to complete a short questionnaire that confirmed eligibility and requested that they select as many categories of identity that applied to them. Participants were selected purposively for maximum variation in perspective according to the questionnaire responses. The categories that were adopted into the analysis by way of participants’ identities created points of comparison between groups and according to sexual orientation and gender. They included: Two Spirit, lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, queer, non-binary, asexual, pansexual, woman, man, cisgender, and heterosexual. Within the context of this sample population, identifying categories of sexual orientation and gender made appreciating differences between each possible by way of intersecting categories of race (dis)ability, and citizenship. In so far as the study in question is using Constructivist Grounded Theory methods and methodology, data analysis began at the point from which data collection began. The ANCA became more complicated as data collection continued because each participant had their own perspective; new points of comparison were thus created, but in such a way that power relations that rely upon the universalization of social categories of identity could be explored.

Using the Intra-Categorical Approach in Adornian Negative Case Analysis

The ANCA carried out in this study can substantiate the inclusion of diverse perspectives across sexual orientation, gender, race, (dis)ability, and citizenship through employing the intra-categorical approach to managing intersectional complexity. Data analysis that compares perspectives held by 2SLGBTQ participants can be described between each category of identity (using the inter-categorical approach) and then further complicated by way of bringing focus to categories of identity within each of the aforementioned categories. Intra-categorical complexity added additional points of comparison by way of the inclusion of intersections of identity that cut across categories of sexual orientation and gender (race (dis)ability, and citizenship). To fully describe the diversity within the sample is beyond the scope of this paper, but within the category of race, subcategories included Indigenous (Mi’kmaq and unspecified), Black (African, African Nova Scotia, Caribbean, and unspecified), Asian (Japanese, Chinese, and unspecified), other visible minority, and White; the category of (dis)ability included mental illness (depression, PTSD, and anxiety), neurodevelopmental disorders (ADHD and other unspecified neurodivergence), other unspecified health-related (dis)abilities, and non-disabled; the category of citizenship included First Nations (Mi’kmaq), Acadian, and Canadian. The category of citizenship is slightly different than the others because the dominant group in a country like Canada cannot be left universalized or the perspectives of immigrants who are Canadian citizens would go unaccounted for. As such, the subcategory of Canadian within the citizenship category was inclusive of first (Northeast Africa and China), second (Croatia and Ireland), and third (Japan) generation immigrants in addition to non-immigrants. Other categories that complicated the analysis, but were not described across the entire sample population were class, religious/belief system, and HIV status. It should be noted that categorical dimensions of ANCA do not reflect the full range of experience held by a sample population, they merely outline the substantiation of EDI in research design by demonstrating that participants were recruited in ways that make it possible to engage an analysis of power relations that have led to the historical exclusion of participants from diverse and equity-seeking groups in research. It is imperative to note ANCA limitations to avoid tokenizing study participants. The three strategies of managing intersectional complexity for the purpose of substantiating EDI in research design are visually represented in Figure 1.OPEN IN VIEWER

Finding a Shared Social Problem to Explore Differences Between and Within Categories of Identity

The final aspect of ANCA to be described here addresses the analysis itself. Stigma emerged from the onset of data collection as significant to participants in the study. Broadly speaking, the construct of stigma upholds social norms by negatively affirming groups and individuals by way of the negation of their existence or worth (Goffman, 1963). In other words, groups and individuals whose subjective realities would call into question that which is assumed are negated (or negatively affirmed) through stigma, allowing for those identities to be reduced into that which opposes the rule. Stigma takes many forms and is structurally embedded; it reflects “societal-level conditions, cultural norms, and institutional policies that constrain the opportunities, resources, and wellbeing of the stigmatized” (Hatzenbuehler and Link, 2014). As any other structural determinant, structural stigma is representative of social relationships that have been shaped over time to create differences in how goods and services are accessed and distributed, which creates differences between and within groups as to how individual lives are impacted (Waldron, 2020). Through practice, social structures are reproduced (Bourdieu, 1977), and so stigma is reproduced by way of the distribution of goods and services.

This Constructivist Grounded Theory study used stigma as its sensitizing concept and confirmed it as a meaningful construct to participants. Participants in the study all experienced stigma, some within the role of stigmatized, others as stigmatizer, and many operating within both roles. In so far, as this study was interested in the delivery of health services to 2SLGBTQ populations in the Canadian province of Nova Scotia, an understanding of stigma within the health system in relation to sexual and gender minorities was established by way of reviewing the literature. The pathologization of homosexuality is a salient example of how the normative construction of heterosexuality has been upheld within heteronormative contexts (Lane, 2020) and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSMs) provides a tracing of the medicalization of gender norms (Drescher, 2015). Psychiatry’s destructive attempts to categorize the mental health of 2LSGBTQ populations as disordered is a distortion of reality; the multiple versions of the DSM represent an incomplete understanding of stigma as the cause of mental illness among sexual and gender minorities and an unresolved history between 2SLGBTQ populations and health systems that is ongoing. This reveals how stigma can be taken up from the broader context of society. In this case, stigma was reproduced by health systems from its broader social context by way of the psychiatric discipline, which allowed for the cause of psychopathologies among 2SLGBTQ populations to be distorted and wrongly attributed to the sexual orientation and/or gender identity of individuals who were constructed in opposition to gender norms. There are stigmas that overlap due to social structures converging upon individuals by way of intersecting identities; the entry point for analyzing the differences in how stigma impacted the experiences of participants within the context of primary healthcare was the stigmatization of sexual and gender minorities. The stigmatization of Black skin in relation to White skin within the context of a white supremacy serves to illustrate how stigmas can overlap for sexual and gender minorities; racism negatively affirms those who are not White, maintains power imbalances, and sustains the status quo. The ANCA employed in the example study is exploring perspectives on stigma between and within social categories of identity within the sample population, to appreciate how they overlap and create barriers to accessing good and services. To illustrate this with a simple example that could be further complicated by including additional social categories of identity, recruiting participants into a study who are 2SLGBTQ and Black, 2SLGBTQ and White, non-2SLGBTQ and Black, and non-2SLGBTQ and White could bring about an understanding of how stigma is experienced that would be more complex than if just sexual orientation, gender, and race were compared as if they operate independently of one another. A robust analysis that strives toward resolving contradictions in how stigma is experienced—not by generalizations, but by way of the differences, particularities, and variations within and between subjective realities is thus promoted and expanded through the inclusion of multiple social categories of identity within a sample population.