Embedding Intersectionality Values in Citizen Science Research: The Socio-Scientific Progression by Leveraging on Intersectionality and Citizen-Led Equity-Driven (SPLICE) Research Framework

Principles Governing the Framework

The existing seven principles derived from intersectionality closely align with existing literature on operationalising intersectionality.

“Research Co-Creation” and “Community-First Approach” has been core to many intersectionality studies, as an emphasis to involve community members and to empower through research has been critical to intersectionality as praxis. These two principles have been traditionally addressed through community-based participatory methods (CBPR) given CBPR’s ability to centre the community’s lived experiences, voices, needs and knowledge, providing space to empower the community (Fernández-Sánchez, 2023; Fine & Torre, 2019; Fleming et al., 2023; Ricks et al., 2022; Ruhland et al., 2023).

The idea of “Reflexivity” was introduced with the recognition that the researchers’ identities and experiences will grant them power — changing the dynamics between themselves and the researched communities — necessarily influencing how research is conducted and disseminated (Atewologun & Mahalingam, 2016; Rice et al., 2019). The goal of reflexivity is to acknowledge that there cannot be complete objectivity in any research study. Instead, critically reflecting on how the researchers’ specific positions and power influence the research process highlights the strengths and limitations of the project (Carstensen-Egwuom, 2014; Rodriguez & Ridgway, 2023). We think meaningful reflections throughout the research process takes the idea of reflexivity one step beyond “positionality statements,” which is traditionally used as a mode of requiring researchers to consider their social positions and how that influences their research process, holding researchers accountable only at the research dissemination stage (Boveda & Annamma, 2023; Secules et al., 2020).

“Safety For All” suggests that all stakeholders — including researchers, researched communities and participants, as well as involved community stakeholders — should have their holistic safety accounted for when engaging in intersectional research. In the face of stigma and minority stress, multiply-marginalised community members may already face safety compromises in multiple spheres; safety measures are hence especially necessary in such contexts (Crenshaw, 1991; Pelcher et al., 2021). Ethics review guidelines place an important emphasis on the notion of ensuring safety for participants (e.g., Panel on Research Ethics, 2022) and accounting for risks inflicted on the broad community (e.g., Resnik & Shamoo, 2011), but less is accounted for regarding the safety of researchers, community members and stakeholders who may be indirectly involved in the research. This gap has been increasingly highlighted by researchers working with traumatised individuals, and we echo the need to take on a broader lens when considering safety in intersectional research (Cullen et al., 2021).

This framework also includes a key idea of “Growth for All,” which originates from the idea of empowerment of the most marginalised communities. Intersectionality scholars have emphasised that intersectional projects must necessarily see their work as praxis — platforms to advance social justice for the most marginalised (Collins, 2019; Crenshaw, 2019). We have chosen the word ‘growth’ instead of ‘empowerment’ when considering how advancement of welfare can take place. Discourse around empowerment attends to marginalised individuals and groups who may seek to engage in collective action to gain greater control, resources, rights, and goals that help achieve them achieve better equitable standing in society (often framed in discussions of power) (Douglas et al., 2016; MacPhee et al., 2017; Maton, 2008). While important and ideal, our framework also seeks to accommodate intersectional projects with smaller-term goals — where the foci might better develop growth (personal, professional and any other form of growth relevant to the individual and community’s interests) rather than orienting itself towards empowerment.

The choice to adapt Bronfenbrenner’s (1994) social ecological model to refer to a “Dynamic Ecological Context” emphasises on the recognition that each sphere within the ecology continually interacts with one another, and each of these spheres as well as the ecology as a whole is constantly changing with time, shaping the context of privilege and oppression one experiences. Such a model better accounts for Collins’ (2019) emphasis on social context, complexity, and relationality in intersectionality — which highlights the need to look into the changing dialogical engagement between identities, individuals, communities and broadly social forces in intersectionality-rooted projects.

The principle of “Interlocking Systems of Oppression” directly adopts the Combahee River Collective’s language, further guiding the understanding that systems of oppression are interdependent and intersecting, influencing experiences of power and social inequality in a complex social context for marginalised communities (Collins, 2019). Adopting interlocking systems of oppression as a lens helps to further emphasise moving away from singular approaches that neglect the other areas of oppression taking place concurrently, instead encouraging the holistic recognition of the unique convergence of identities shaping one’s experience across their ecology (Bowleg, 2008, 2012; Crenshaw, 1991; Evans-Winters & Esposito, 2019; Shields, 2008; Thacker & Duran, 2020).

Envisioning SPLICE’s Implementation in Research

Figure 5 summarises these concepts, how they can be applied throughout the research process, as well as key considerations in their implementation. Figure 6 then synthesises our findings with Chong and colleagues' (2025) model of citizen science, to consider which specific phases within the Citizen Science Framework could explicitly introduce values of intersectionality. While implementing these concepts into each phase of one’s research, researchers should continue centring Collins’ (2019) principles of social inequality, power, relationality, social context, complexity and social justice. ² OPEN IN VIEWER

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 6.

Integrating Values of Intersectionality Into Chong and Colleagues’ (2025) Citizen Science Framework.

Research Methodology and Leadership (Phases 1 to 4)

In considering aspects of research leadership and positionality, they align strongly with Phases 1 through 4 within Chong and colleagues' (2025) Citizen Science Framework. In order, these Phases include: “Developing a Research and Implementation Pipeline,” “Stakeholder and Resource Mapping,” “Delegation of Expertise” and “Creating Plans for Equity”. In these phases, Chong and colleagues (2025) called for a discussion on community, academic and funding priorities, before considering human and logistical resources required and available for the project execution. Thereafter, the team advocated for citizen science research projects to delegate work based on the appreciation that both community partners and academic stakeholders are experts in their own rights, before taking an active effort to make plans to ensure all stakeholders are equitably recognized for the effort they have invested into the research (Chong et al., 2025). SPLICE integrates the values of “Research Co-Creation,” “Reflexivity,” “Growth for All” and “Safety for All” to support these four phases (Figure 1).

Research Formulation (Phase 5)

In thinking about the research formulation stage, this parallels the Citizen Science Framework’s Phase 5 (“Developing a Research Plan”). At this phase, researchers should centre the considerations of including a “Dynamic Ecological Context,” recognising and addressing “Interlocking Systems of Oppression”, and taking a “Community-First Approach” (Figure 2).

Research Execution and Analysis (Phase 6)

The process of research execution and analysis of results aligns with Phase 6 of the Citizen Science Framework: “Generating Evidence and Analysis”. Within this phase, key principles include “Safety for All,” “Dynamic Ecological Context,” “Interlocking Systems of Oppression” and “Community-First Approach” (Figure 3). This section will discuss how these previously discussed principles can be adapted to support an intersectional implementation of the research execution and analysis process.

Dissemination and Impacts (Phase 7-8)

A big part of knowledge production is in its dissemination format and considerations of impacts in the longer term: how information is communicated may make a critical difference whether the findings positively impact the community. This final segment then closely aligns with Phases 7 to 8 of the Citizen Science Framework: the “Dissemination and Translation” of results, as well as how to introduce “Plans for Sustainability and Impact” (Figure 4). This section covers how to adopt a “Community-First Approach” in the final phases of research studies, through reviewing the approaches utilised in the case study with regard to the dissemination and sustainability of the research.

The Case Study

The current article investigates the SPLICE framework using an explanatory case study, illustrating how the SPLICE framework can be adopted and implemented within research settings. This case study looks at a collaboration research conducted between David Puvaneyshwaran, a social work Masters’ research student, and kayos kollective, ³ a research group based in Singapore that focuses on LGBTQIA+ topics, in an effort to tease out key concepts that ensure the appropriate application of intersectionality into research. An abductive approach was adopted, where SPLICE’s general framework informed the implementation of the study; at the same time, the framework was further developed as ground up data informed adjustments that were required for the framework to be concretised (Hurley et al., 2021; Yin, 2018).

This article draws from David and kayos kollective’s study on the Youth Theatre Project (NUS-IRB-2023-50) applied in Singapore, which aimed to examine the shifts in critical consciousness among participants before and after participating in a Theatre of the Oppressed (TO) workshop. The five-session workshop featured curated theatre games and activities inspired by Boal (1992) and Rohd (1998), and was conducted over a 2-month period. These activities were designed to facilitate rapport and trust building to build a supportive community (Puvaneyshwaran, 2024), as well as to facilitate critical reflection and motivation (Freire, 1970).

The current article adopts a reflective lens to look at how the experience of executing the study has guided the kayos kollective team in developing a framework that guides the planning and execution of research studies based on principles of intersectionality.

A Note on Epistemological Considerations

As a methodological consideration, we have intentionally avoided discussing issues of epistemologies. We appreciate that this may be a contentious decision, given the emphasis of intersectional scholars on epistemology. However, we hope to advocate for the belief that every epistemology will benefit from an intersectional angle, and we apply a pragmatic approach in encouraging the interweaving of intersectionality whenever and wherever possible.

Research Methodology and Leadership (Phases 1 to 4)

Research Formulation (Phase 5)

Research Execution and Analysis (Phase 6)

Dissemination and Impacts (Phase 7-8)

Alignment With Literature on Operationalising Intersectionality

For our case study, through our centering of “research co-creation” and a “community-first approach,” we found ourselves better being able to address the experiences of our community of interest, the LGBTQIA+ community, in its authentic, heterogenous form, deriving findings that highlight the shared experiences of marginalisation but also honouring the unique differences when interwoven with one’s experiences of privilege and oppression in other identities. As previously shared, the alignment of the two principles with existing literature further justifies its application with the Citizen Science Framework (see next section), based upon the basic principles of citizen science (a CBPR approach; Chong et al., 2025).

On “reflexivity”, we find that meaningful reflexivity did enhance research quality, as our research and community team members held each other accountable to consider how their personal experiences and values may have influenced the research process that they conducted. It is also through these reflection sessions that researchers and community members were able to uncover some limitations of their own viewpoints, allowing them to push boundaries beyond their usual frames of thinking. We caution against the sweeping requirement for all researchers to include a positionality reflection in their papers as an intuitive mode of ensuring reflexivity in research. In our case study, the authors were based in a country where the Parliament had just decriminalised their anti-sodomy law, Section 377A, in 2022 (Goh, 2022; Lim & Seet, 2023). In the said society, clear laws remained in place preventing LGBTQIA+ individuals from having the same legal rights as non-LGBTQIA+ individuals (e.g., housing, marriage; Rajeswari, 2017). A request for positionality (particularly in relation to their gender and sexual identities) in these particular contexts may in fact pose immediate danger to their safety. We ask instead that authors engage in critical reflection that is meaningful for the project and the community, yet remains safe for the authors, and we ask that journals, publishers, and reviewers focus on the element of critical reflection instead of requiring a positionality statement at the cost of authors’ safety.

On “safety for all,” aligning with past literature speaking to the need for focus on safety (e.g., Crenshaw, 1991; Cullen et al., 2021; Pelcher et al., 2021), our research findings similarly highlight the need for safety measures to be built in as some participants, given their identities (age, religion), may still face compromised psychological and even physical safety should they be found to have participated in our study. However, our findings also highlight the need to take a broader view of safety — to break conventions of only thinking about participants’ safety and to begin deliberating about researchers’ safety as well.

On “growth for all”, we find this principle aligning closely to our studies’ community members’ mentalities — while most of our community members who completed our projects do not foresee themselves moving onto bigger social justice projects, they have at least indicated that the experience has helped them grow their skills and social network, building relationships they foresee they will carry with them for a long time. Participants also indicated that sharing their responses to reflexive questions had helped them advance their own understanding of personal and societal issues. In integrating “growth for all” as a core principle, we hope that intersectional projects can include projects that may not achieve the goal of creating change on a social justice level, but still benefit marginalised communities in terms of individual and community growth (Collins, 2015, 2017, 2019).

On “dynamic ecological context”, expanding on the argument made regarding the need to account for time and interacting experiences across each sphere of the social ecology when discussing social context (Bronfenbrenner, 1994; Collins, 2019), our case study findings similarly reflected the explicit acknowledgment of these changing circumstances within the realities and lived experiences of marginalised communities. In offering the opportunity to reflect on how experiences were continually changing and interacting with each sphere’s on one’s changing social ecology across their lifespan, our study was able to acquire a richer appreciation of how one’s experiences with privileges and oppression as well as their strengths and resiliencies when responding to such experiences of oppression.

On “interlocking systems of oppression” — a key tenet of intersectionality to be addressed (Bowleg, 2008, 2012; Crenshaw, 1991; Evans-Winters & Esposito, 2019; Shields, 2008; Thacker & Duran, 2020)—, our findings echo the benefits of considering experiences whilst accounting for these complexities, stepping away from a singular lens and thinking about how one’s LGBTQIA+ experiences interact with their other identities of privilege and marginalisation, we have acquired perspectives on how within marginalised populations, there may be heterogeneous and unequal experiences of stigma depending on how their identities may be placed in other areas of privilege and oppression. In choosing to integrate a conscious awareness towards the effects of interlocking systems of oppression, intersectional researchers will better be able to capture the uniqueness and diversity that accurately reflects the lived experiences of marginalised communities of interest.

Alignment With Values of Citizen Science (and Framework)

Chong and colleagues' (2025) Citizen Science Framework was first adopted as a framework of reference given its ability to line up to Goodman and colleagues’ (2020) eight engagement statements where consensus was achieved regarding how and when citizen science principles are met, which Figure 7 replicates. We find that the intersectionality values we aim to propagate complement neatly with the suggested actions of the Chong and colleagues' (2025) Citizen Science Framework.OPEN IN VIEWER

The intersectionality principles we are advocating for neatly complements the operational action Chong and colleague (2025) suggested as part of their framework from Phases 1 to 4. For instance, research co-creation lines up exactly with the call to equitably include community members into the research, incorporating a stronger emphasis on including diverse representation from within the community. Growth for All further highlights the need to develop and empower community members when addressing the community’s priorities. Our newly built framework adds to the Citizen Science Framework by calling for an increased emphasis on safety for all (including stakeholders) and systematic reflexivity as accountability. These two principles are critical in acknowledging the involvement of researchers, community members as participants alike — not only does it offer an opportunity to deliberate the effects of positionality, which the current Citizen Science Framework places less of a focus on, but it further highlights the need to account for all stakeholders’ interests in the process of the research.

In Phase 5, Chong and colleagues' (2025) highlighted the need for diverse team dynamics, to consider providing for logistical flexibility (e.g., timelines, protocols) and centring safety in the process. These actionables provide considerations into ‘who’ should be doing the research. We build on the thought process, encouraging researchers to address “what” is being researched in this phase. For example, we ask researchers to think about how systems of interlocking oppression interact with one’s dynamic ecological contexts i.e., how experiences of privilege and oppression across each level of the Bronfenbrenner’s (1994) social ecological model interact and change across time. We also call for researchers to centre a community-first approach, adopting the perspectives and language used by the community and intentionally engaging with their heterogeneous makeup and needs, but also highlighting their strengths and resiliencies where possible. We see these values as being feasible and aligned with the principles behind the advocated research team makeup by the initial Citizen Science Framework, adding value to the framework.

In Phase 6, the Citizen Science Framework emphasises how research execution and analysis should create opportunities to ensure the autonomy and input by both academic and community partners (Chong et al., 2025). Our adapted SPLICE framework further highlights processual considerations we should integrate alongside the above-mentioned considerations. We return to advocating for safety for all — where we re-emphasise the need to consider safety for all stakeholders through protocols and anonymity/visibility considerations, as well as the need to adopt a community-first approach, where we ensure that we continue to call for partnership with relevant community groups to ensure heterogenous and representative samples are recruited. Beyond that, across the research execution and analysis, suitable adaptation to remain sensitive towards participants’ experiences of oppression and privilege in a given place, time, and context is necessary. This includes ensuring that an intentional transversal approach is adopted, rather than an additive one. The current adapted framework provides a clearer picture on steps to integrate into one’s research execution and analysis to ensure they adhere closer to citizen science and intersectionality principles.

Chong and colleagues' (2025) Phases 7 and 8 asks for researchers to remain accountable to the community and plan for dissemination and sustainability plans that tie into the community’s work. This aligns with what we propagate in our community-first approach, which asks researchers to centre the community’s needs first when deciding on dissemination and sustainability plans.

On top of considerations at each phase, we continue asking researchers to centre their research design and execution around the values of social inequality, power, relationality, social context, complexity and social justice. While we had aimed to embed values — as promulgated by Collins (2019) — into our SPLICE framework, we acknowledge that the broad interpretations of these values may create different implementation approaches beyond our suggestions. We encourage a deeper engagement by considering what each of these values mean to individual research projects, and to adapt and adjust our framework according to the researchers’ interpretations insofar as they honour the goals of intersectionality as a field, as an analytical framework and a praxis (Collins, 2019).

Significance

This paper uniquely positions itself within the burgeoning field of intersectional method design through its dual integration of citizen science’s principles and intersectionality’s key constructs, to produce an operational framework that seeks to guide equitable research on a granular, phasic level. In synthesising the inter-related principles and constructs of citizen science and intersectionality, our SPLICE framework bridges common pitfalls of misdefinition and ambiguous implementations of the latter, forwarding best practices for research application at every phase of research from conceptualisation to execution.

We also seek to contribute a Singaporean and Southeast Asian perspective to the application of intersectionality. Recognising that discourse surrounding intersectionality has been primarily developing within the Euro-American paradigm, we find that this has not been the case for our local and regional contexts. Resultantly, we take an exploratory approach to the implementation of intersectionality in localised contexts, while encouraging further research on the topic within regions and nations under-represented in intersectionality studies. We recognize that this merely acts as a first step in trying to achieve the aspiration of addressing nuanced context and intricacies of individuals’ experiences while trying to uplift the most marginalised to advance social justice for all. Nonetheless, we see this as a meaningful venture in trying to provide one option for social science researchers to adopt when attempting to achieve these goals, should intersectionality be central to their research agenda.

Limitations

The study in itself is limited by the disciplinary expertise (concentrated in Psychology and Public Health) as well as the case studies made available for reference — originating from a queer-focused research group based in Singapore, the types of themes we derived were rooted to our specific contextual experiences, which we recognize may not account for the experiences of other marginalised communities in other cultural contexts.

Also, we acknowledge that the frameworks cannot dictate exact steps to be taken — rather, we aim to provide clearer guidelines on areas to consider in each phase of research. While we do not claim that this framework offers a panacea to integrating intersectionality principles into every research study, we believe that the framework and checklist offers a concrete first step that future citizen science and intersectionality researchers may consider adapting for their use in their relevant disciplines.