Conference Program

Body shaming is a widespread but methodologically elusive phenomenon that challenges traditional quantitative measurement strategies. In scientific literature, it is often studied using tools that focus on isolated aspects of the experience—such as specific physical characteristics, individual traits, or contexts—without integrating them into a coherent framework. This fragmentation risks obscuring the complex nature of body shaming, limiting the interpretability and comparability of empirical results.

This study introduces a measurement tool to study body shaming while preserving its relational, contextual, and intersectional complexity. The study assumes that body shaming cannot be adequately understood if treated as a unitary or homogeneous event. Rather, body shaming is conceptualized as an experience produced by the intersection of multiple dimensions, including gender, age, social positioning, relational configurations, and life contexts. In this framework, intersectionality is not addressed as a descriptive variable added a posteriori, but as a methodological principle that guides both the construction of the instrument and the organization of the data. Overall, the study proposes a measurement model that conceptualizes body shaming not as a single variable, but as a layered relational phenomenon that manifests through systematic communicative strategies of devaluation at the lexical level, with implications for self-perception, self-esteem, and interpersonal relationships.

To operationalize this perspective, the study developed a questionnaire with a key methodological feature: the analytical separation of dimensions that are often conflated in existing research. The instrument distinguishes between the relational level – defined as the nature of the relationship between victim and aggressor (e.g., strangers, friends, family members) –and the relational context, understood as the interactional configuration in which body shaming occurs (e.g., group settings, one-to-one interactions). Treating these dimensions as analytically independent preserves the complexity of lived experiences and supports a multilevel analysis of the phenomenon, while avoiding hybrid or ambiguous categories.

Additional sections of the questionnaire allow these dimensions to be systematically cross-referenced with gender, age, and life contexts, making it possible to identify patterns of differentiated exposure that would remain invisible with one-dimensional measurement approaches. The tool also includes open-ended options that allow unexpected categories to emerge, thus increasing its sensitivity to lived experience beyond predefined sets of responses.

The questionnaire was administered online via Google Forms to a sample of 1,014 participants. A branching logic was implemented to distinguish between respondents who had directly experienced body shaming and those who had only witnessed it. This design choice reduces the burden on respondents and improves data quality by avoiding the administration of irrelevant items. Empirical results indicate that body shaming occurs predominantly within weak or impersonal relationships, but a significant proportion of episodes also occur within meaningful relational spheres, particularly among friends and family members. Group contexts emerge as the most frequent interactional context, amplifying the role of public and performative dynamics. Furthermore, data on non-cisgender participants reveal high exposure across multiple levels and relational contexts, highlighting an intersectional vulnerability linked to the interaction between gender identity and dominant body norms.

Intersectionality is widely recognised as a key framework for analysing complex and overlapping
inequalities, yet its methodological operationalisation in educational and organisational research
remains contested. This paper contributes to the debate on intersectional methodologies by
reflecting on the transdisciplinary research design developed within the INTERGEN project, funded
under the Italian National Recovery and Resilience Plan (PNRR), which focuses on women’s
empowerment and sustainable entrepreneurship in marginal and inner areas.
Using the INTERGEN Transdisciplinarity Report as a reflexive case study, the paper conceptualises
intersectionality not as a predefined set of additive categories, but as a relational and situated
analytical process. Gender, generation, territorial marginality, socio-economic conditions, and -
where empirically relevant - migration background and care responsibilities are treated as
intersecting axes whose salience emerges through the research process rather than being
hierarchically fixed ex ante. This approach requires a transdisciplinary framework capable of
integrating sociological, gender, economic, territorial and policy-oriented knowledge with
experiential and practice-based forms of expertise.
Methodologically, INTERGEN combines multiple, interdependent tools: (1) the mapping and
analysis of good practices, conceptualised as situated learning environments in which
organisational, educational and community-based knowledge intersect; (2) a Delphi study involving
scholars, practitioners and institutional actors, explicitly designed to surface disagreements, policy
blind spots and divergent positionalities rather than forcing artificial consensus; and (3)
participatory co-design and co-creation processes with women and local stakeholders.
Intersectionality is operationalised through iterative analytical strategies, including reflexive
positionality work, cross-dimensional analytical matrices and feedback loops with participants,
aimed at avoiding essentialisation and tokenistic representations.
The paper discusses key methodological and ethical dilemmas encountered in the research process,
such as power asymmetries between academic and non-academic actors, the tension between
contextual specificity and transferability of practices, and the risk of flattening diversity through
policy-driven categories. From an educational perspective, INTERGEN conceptualises learning not
merely as skills acquisition, but as a democratic process of mutual recognition, translation and
reflexivity across different forms of knowledge and levels of governance.
By linking intersectionality and transdisciplinarity, the paper argues that methodological pluralism
is not a neutral technical choice but a democratic one. Intersectional transdisciplinary research can
function as a form of learning democracy, fostering epistemic justice in knowledge production,
while simultaneously supporting democracy for learning by informing more inclusive, context-
sensitive educational and organisational practices. The INTERGEN experience thus offers
transferable methodological insights for researchers seeking to operationalise intersectionality in
rigorous, reflexive and socially transformative ways.

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.

The core of the sociology of education developed throughout the 20th century, initially focusing on the connection between educational phenomena and social class stratification. These foundational studies mainly demonstrated the role of families' socio-economic, socio-cultural, and socio-linguistic resources and how, along with institutional and pedagogical factors, these shape educational inequalities. While these theories were important, they lacked the tools to comprehend inequalities stemming from other social relationships and categorisations. Later, the sociology of education expanded its focus, with increased attention to gender disparities and, especially in Anglophone literature, to ethno-racial social dynamics. More recently, issues such as sexual orientation and disability have also been included.

Although some of these foundational analyses have broadened to incorporate studies on categorization and social relationships beyond their original scope, they often act as “separate lenses,” examining factors as additive rather than interconnected systems of oppression. To bridge this analytical gap, scholars have more frequently embraced the concept of intersectionality in recent years to develop a more nuanced understanding of school inequalities.

Intersectionality is a theoretical framework that stems from black feminist thought and activism, criticizing both monist and pluralist views on analyzing systems of oppression. It seeks to offer a comprehensive perspective to examine the system of domination at once, along with its fundamental and dependent aspects (Bilge, 2010). Thus, it functions as a tool for analysing power (Collins, 2000) aimed at promoting social justice (Cho et al., 2013).

Based on this definition, we conducted a critical literature review. We aim to critically analyze, synthesize, and reinterpret a body of literature using intersectionality to examine educational inequalities in order to develop new theoretical insights. Our review’s originality lies in addressing the main gaps in the existing literature by exploring a question that has not been thoroughly examined: how and for what purposes can we conduct a sociological analysis of educational inequalities grounded in intersectionality? And how can this advance the field of studies and debates regarding the limitations of foundational approaches to educational inequalities?

Through this critical literature review, we identified an ecosystem centred around four epistemological gestures that shape intersectional research in the sociology of education. These four epistemological gestures are: diagnosing inequality by assessing its scope, interpreting how it is experienced, criticizing the systems that produce it, and transforming educational practices and the system itself. These four orientations form an interconnected ecosystem that can help renew analyses of educational inequalities through their relationships: diagnosis, supported by interpretation, can shed light on lived experience; interpretation with a critical perspective maintains political implications; and critique, aided by transformation, offers tangible solutions.

The intersectional paradigm emerged from the movements that, since the second half of the twentieth century, challenged one-dimensional readings of discrimination: Black feminisms, LGBTQIA+ subjectivities and decolonial perspectives highlighted the simultaneous and stratified nature of systems of oppression. Within this framework, Crenshaw (1991) conceptualised intersectionality as the interaction of multiple identity positions – gender, ethnicity, age, sexual orientation, disability and neurodivergence – producing configurations of privilege and marginalisation (Collins, 1990; King, 1988). The Wheel of Intersectionality (Simpson, 2009) represents this dynamic by placing subjective experience at the centre of interconnected dimensions that cannot be analytically isolated.

This paper presents three ongoing research projects based at the Department of Educational Sciences of the University of Bologna, united by their adoption of intersectionality as an epistemic stance and methodological orientation for promoting the self-determination of adults with disabilities across different life contexts.

The first study investigates self-narration among adults with intellectual disabilities in socio-rehabilitative day centres. Drawing on a participatory narrative approach, it explores how autobiographical storytelling enables individuals to reclaim their own stories beyond diagnosis (Atkinson, 2010), interrogating the power asymmetries that determine who is recognised as a legitimate interlocutor (Rice et al., 2015). The use of communicative mediators makes narrative practices accessible, acknowledging that barriers to expression are structurally situated (Grove & Harwood, 2021).

The second study is situated within the framework of Universal Design for Working (UDW), developed to rethink work environments by recognising the plurality of human functioning (Canevaro, 2004). Drawing on Universal Design for Learning (CAST, 2018) – which proposes flexible design principles for accessible learning environments – UDW extends this perspective to the workplace. Starting from four principles modelled on the three UDL principles and reworked for the employment context, the research aims to develop guidelines for professional environments that foster coexistence and valorisation of differences, on both utilitarian and deontological grounds. The methodological design comprises focus groups with inclusion advocates, followed by questionnaires administered to workers and employers for the validation of the resulting indicators. The intersectional perspective informs both the framework – which recognises that workplace experience is shaped by the interaction of disability, gender, neurotype, ethnicity and generational belonging – and the participatory process of construction.

The third study explores the integration of Montessori principles into the education of adults with disabilities. The emphasis on the prepared environment, autonomy and respect for individual pacing is reinterpreted through an intersectional lens as a valorisation of the singularity of each learning trajectory. Adapting these principles to adulthood makes it possible to move beyond standardising approaches, recognising that educational needs are shaped by the interplay of social, cultural and embodied experiences. The research adopts an exploratory design involving participant observation and interviews.

Together, the three studies demonstrate how intersectionality can be translated into concrete methodological choices – in the design of research instruments, the selection of participants, and data analysis – capturing the complexity of those who inhabit multiple positions of marginalisation, while raising shared questions concerning the risk of categorical essentialism, power dynamics in the research process, and the building of epistemic alliances with the communities involved.