Conference Program

This paper analyses the methodological implications of adopting intersectional perspectives in inclusive research on disability and forms of systemic and structural oppression (Crenshaw, 2017; Goodley, et al, 2018). Intersectional perspectives are here explored as a methodological matrix for analysing and questioning structural power relations in research settings (Fabbri, 2025). The questions we attempt to answer are: what are the methodological implications of adopting intersectional perspectives in inclusive research? How and under what conditions do intersectional frameworks help researchers explore the “for whom” and “for what” of research? Who is left behind and through what mechanisms?

In order to answer these questions, the results of a transformative research project with participants belonging to translocal positions (Anthias, 2008) are presented and discussed. The project, entitled “PEACE” (Prodrugs treatment for Endometriosis And women's well-being CarE), follows a mixed-methods design (Hirose, & Creswell, 2022) that explores the experiences of multiple discrimination and marginalisation in work and healthcare contexts to which women with invisible disabilities, such as women with endometriosis, adenomyosis and gender-related conditions, are exposed. The sociocultural construction of the pathological condition places women in a position of epistemic inequality and undermines their contribution in terms of epistemic agency (Braida, 2024).

The qualitative phase involved conducting ethnographic observations and interviews with 25 women. The focus was on an intersectionality-based analysis of the 25 “war stories”, analysed through the construction of thematic analysis matrices referring to the constructs of epistemic injustice (Fricker, 2007; De Lucia, 2018) and hermeneutic injustice (Medina, 2013). The interpretative paradigm-oriented thematic analysis procedure (Winker, & Degele, 2011) focused on embodied biographies that centre on the experiences of silencing that women with invisible pathologies face. The analysis makes visible the structural mechanisms by which women are subjected to a double epistemic delegitimisation, both testimonial and hermeneutic (Fricker, 2007). The relationship with the diagnosis, which is accessed after a “medical diaspora”, is reinterpreted in terms of identity affirmation around which informal networks of knowledge are women.

The quantitative phase, currently ongoing, involved the use of an online survey consisting of the WHOQOL-Short (World Health Organisation Quality of Life – Short Version) (De Girolamo, et al., 2000) and EHP-30 (Endometriosis Health Profile Questionnaire) (Hansen, et al., 2021) batteries, administered to date to a sample of 830 women throughout the country.

The quantitative step explores the perception that women with endometriosis in our country report of their quality of life, examining how the chronic condition affects their perception of aspects related to physical, emotional and relational well-being (Maulenkul, et al. 2024).

In discussing the implications for disability studies, a framework of methodological guidelines for conducting transformative research projects from an intersectional perspective is explored, highlighting the implications in terms of research designs, participant selection, choice of data collection tools and researcher reflexivity. The aim is to translate intersectional perspectives into theoretical and methodological approaches in order to problematise the non-linearity and complexity of “how to” conduct intersectional research at every stage, within social, school and university contexts characterised by pervasive inequalities and disparities in every field of knowledge.