Rurality and intersectionality: a literature review Open Access

Intersectionality has become the conceptual framework used to suggest the “relationships among multiple dimensions and modalities of social relations and subject formations” (McCall, 2005, p. 1775) that manifest in interlocking modes of exclusion and disadvantage. Crenshaw (1989) coined the term intersectionality to explain the ways in which processes of gendering and racialisation engage with and constitute one another. Gray et al. (2016) have raised concerns that intersectionality has not been adequately accommodated to the depth of engagements with differences because it has often ignored the logic of space, seeing the “urban” as the predominant spatial domain where such interlocking exclusions occur. This focus on the “urban” is not surprising as it is the “urban” that is constructed as the spatial norm through which difference and the superdiversity of identities is often engaged, resulting in regular experiences of exclusion invoked by the intersections of “race”, class, gender and sexuality (Kerrigan, 2025; Shortall, 2014). The “urban” became the dominant spatial frame of normative diversity (Beebeejaun, 2024) with the enclosure of the “commons” and the rise of industrial capitalism in the late 18th century (Hodkinson, 2012). These processes facilitated a cultural and social modernity, and an expansion of a globalised urbanism which saw the demography of the city rapidly change, becoming a spatial lens for diversity and competing and shifting identity and power relations (Simmel, 2023/1903; Harvey, 1989; Massey, 1994; Lefebvre, 2003/1970).

The rural has been framed as the opposite of the urban as “simple, static, natural, disconnected, unsophisticated and monocultural” (Krivokapic-Skoko et al., 2018, p. 154) and simultaneously, urban understandings have been transferred to the rural context as if they were the same (see Bares et al., 2019), giving rise to issues of the transferability of research outcomes in suburban, rural and remote contexts. Thomas et al. (2021 p. 2) added geography (geographic location) to their intersectionality framework to demonstrate both the dynamic and contextual impacts of cultural, environmental and socio-political events and characteristics that intersect with individuals and their life outcomes such as poorer health outcomes and life mobility opportunities in rural contexts. The need to treat rural or place as intersecting with race, gender, class, disability and the urban-centric systems, policies and outcomes that are not connected to rural contexts is highlighted. In previous work on gender and sexuality diversity, Binnie and Skeggs (2004) have sought to “provide a corrective to previous studies of a (singular) ‘coming out geography’, centred around commercialized urban scene spaces.” Such a centring arguably collapses the “(in)visibilities and (im)possibilities between and among urban and rural terrains” (Taylor, 2011, p. 183).

The added dimension of rurality brings place to the fore in addition to race, gender and ability as another dimension to be considered in intersectional analysis. An exploration of the methodological strengths and weaknesses of works on intersectionality is organised around three defining aspects of intersectionality: inclusion, analytical interactions and institutional primacy (see Choo and Ferree, 2010). Choo and Ferree (2010, p. 130) sought to clarify “differences in how scholars who have explicitly worked with the concept of intersectionality have employed it and then … consider how intersectional analysis could be more widely used to inform understandings of core sociological issues, such as institutions, power relationships, culture, and interpersonal interaction”. A central element in applying the concept of intersectionality is to draw out the experiences of individuals and groups who often remain invisible, though such analysis involves more than promoting difference which can become fetishised (Choo and Ferree, 2010).

In considering the nature of an intersectional analysis, studies specifically referring to intersectional analysis were identified. Intersectionality has been taken up in many scholarly fields as a fiercely impactful analytical concept in addressing inequality and social justice (Carastathis, 2014; Thomas et al., 2021). Yet, scholarship on intersectionality remains minimal (Thomas et al., 2021). The lack of attention to intersections of gender, race and class inequality in rural sociology has been noted by Pini et al. (2022). What is rural as a spatial identity, and how does it fit with intersectionality? Critical conversation is needed and ought to include engagement with manifestations of diverse identities and the power structures that affect them. The addition of place as a key domain in the papers reviewed is highlighted throughout.

The reviewed literature considers diverse social dynamics from the manifestations of masculinity and gender identity (Abelson, 2016), sexual identity (Abelson, 2016), class-based performances of youth (Cairns, 2013) to young people’s nonmedical prescription opioid use (Bares et al., 2019). What is common among these varied lines of inquiry is an insistence on the pertinence of place and space to intersecting social identities (see Terman, 2020; Walker et al., 2019), which needs to occupy broader intersectionality scholarship to draw out the nuances of rural contexts.

A scoping literature review was conducted to consider the range and focus of papers using an explicitly stated intersectional framework relating to rural contexts. The search was carried out within specific search parameters as indicated below. With a specific interest in intersectional studies that were connected to rural areas, a number of databases were searched. We wanted to locate texts where the explicit phrase “intersectionality” had been used and where there was a substantial focus on this concept. The timeframe for relevant studies was the ten-year period 2011–2021 when original searches were conducted. The dearth of studies in this period suggests there is much to be done to incorporate intersectional analysis. Searches were applied to the abstract and title of academic articles and confined to English from North America, United Kingdom, Europe and Australasia.

While the authors recognise rural areas and regions are relational and interconnected spaces, which are constructed through their interrelations with other spaces (Massey, 2005), the focus is on the ways intersectionality has been employed as a theoretical framework or mentioned in articles written from the perspective of rural areas of the “Global North”. As all authors are situated in the “Global North”, we have chosen to concentrate on this context and refrain from commenting on and comparing work published in Asia, Africa and South America. There is nevertheless recognition due to global intensities, that the “Global North-South” relationship is one of relationality and therefore the flows of identity, socio-spatial processes and rural place-based meaning-making practices from one can mutually reinforce the other.

The authors are also aware that such bifurcated splitting of rural areas and regions across the world has the tendency to reaffirm a discourse of coloniality with regard to how rural areas are shaped and understood (Butler and Ben, 2021). The selected articles framed by understandings of rurality from the perspective of the “Global North” are understood as constructions shaped through patterns of relationality (Brickell and Datta, 2011) with other places and spaces – rural or otherwise - from areas and regions across the world.

Searches commenced with the terms “intersectionality OR intersectional OR intersects OR intersection” resulting in large returns as shown in Table 1. Searches were then refined with additional terms “AND Rural OR rurality OR regional OR remote OR country* OR pastoral* OR exurban OR agrarian OR non-urban” and again returned large numbers. Additional search terms were added to further refine results “AND, Identity OR ident* OR social location OR disability* OR race OR gender* OR class OR sexuality OR ethnic* OR religious OR place OR space* OR nationality” and finally “AND”, Equality OR equity OR inequality OR inequity OR diversity OR difference OR exclusion* OR inclusion* OR diverse* OR privilege OR empower OR disempower OR colonial OR colonise* OR decolonise OR postcolonial OR disadvantage OR advantage OR oppression. For full search details see Table 1.

A final list of 492 references was downloaded into Endnote. After removing duplicates and non-English articles, 423 remained. A search of the Endnote file revealed that only 39 referred to both “intersectionality” and “rural”. A further 17 were removed as they were outside the geographic areas of focus, leaving 21 for full review (see Figure 1 PRISMA diagram). Nineteen of the papers were from the USA, three were from Canada, three were from Australia and one each from Italy, Germany, United Kingdom, New Caledonia, New Zealand.

One paper focused on the Global North (Walker et al., 2019).

Each paper was read by at least two reviewers (and moderated) and PDFs were uploaded into NVivo12 to identify superordinate themes. This process allowed key terms to be identified within and across papers, how it was being used and to what extent. It was possible to determine the number of papers that mentioned specific key terms (e.g. gender, “race”, disability and so on) and the extent to which they have been discussed using an intersectionality lens.

It was evident from searches that only a relatively small number of articles fit the criteria for review. The extensive range of studies that may be considered intersectional could not be encompassed in this review (such as Binnie and Skeggs, 2004; Shortall, 2014). Only since 2018 has more explicit consideration of intersectionality and rural contexts taken place (see Figure 2).

Nine papers were from the USA, three were from Canada, three were from Australia and one each from Italy, Germany, United Kingdom, New Caledonia and New Zealand with one paper centred on the Global North (Walker et al., 2019). Papers are shown by country in Table 2.

The aim of the literature review was to consider the insights and themes discussed and how they were considered within an intersectional framework relating to the rural context and encompassing experiences as well as structural elements in relation to rural places and spaces. Inductive thematic analysis was used to capture themes and consider their meanings and connections within each paper (Braun and Clarke, 2022; Ozuem et al., 2022).

The use of key theorists was considered across the papers, finding that 10 papers cited Crenshaw (1989, 1991), seven cited McCall (2005, 2013), six cited Hill-Collins (2009), four cite Bell et al. (1994), Bell and Valentine (1995), Valentine (2007), two cited Mirza (2014), three cited Walby (2007), Walby et al. (2012), and three cited Butler (1990) and Massey (1994, 1995, 2005, 2009) was cited in four.

Three papers did not cite any of the theorists above. These papers were Bice-Wigington and Morgan (2018), Glorius et al. (2020) and Mitchell and Rodis (2020). Those that cited only one of these key authors included Anderson-Carpenter (2021) and Bares et al. (2019). However, as Hill-Collins (2015) notes, citing particular theorists is not necessary or indicative of intersectional analysis (p. 11). The use of key theorists does at least suggest an attempt to apply an intersectional lens, however.

Two papers used the term “intersectionality” as a keyword and/or reference only (Bares et al., 2019; Walker, 2020). In seven others, the term appeared in a reference and once or twice in the text. The only paper that used the term throughout was Walker et al. (2019). Those papers that used the term “intersectionality” as a reference and once or twice in the text were Abelson (2016), Anderson-Carpenter (2021), Bice-Wigington and Morgan (2018), Cairns (2013), Glorius et al. (2020), Mitchell and Rodis (2020) and Rubin et al. (2014). The implications of the use of the term are considered in the discussion.

The papers chosen presented a range of applications of intersectionality that allow us to consider an intersectional lens with a strong application indicating the use of interrelated themes throughout, such as race and gender in relation to place. These papers seek to acknowledge the complexity in some of these domains with some providing in-depth analysis of experiences in a number of domains and examining norms, values, power structures and the discourses and narratives that support these influences. We therefore use the term “strong intersectionality” in line with Thomas et al. (2023) to refer to a thorough, deep methodological engagement with intersectionality.

The papers predominantly draw on qualitative data, with four exceptions. Three papers are exceptions in that they consider the limits of survey data in objective measures of social class and socioeconomic status (Rubin et al., 2014), the need to consider multiple identities when designing treatment interventions for adolescent opioid use (Bares et al., 2019) and exploring the connection between spirituality, rurality and LGBTQ support in “outness” (Anderson-Carpenter, 2021). The papers draw out the limits of existing measures and how they can inform interventions by acknowledging heterogeneity amongst target populations. They use the idea of intersectionality to draw out the need to acknowledge a range of dimensions in considering measures and treatment options for varying populations. A fourth paper was a “teaching note” (Bice Wigington and Morgan, 2018) describing a teaching model that extends awareness to address “the intersectionality of the multiple dimensions of diversity” (392).

Glorius et al. (2020) draw on survey data complemented with in-depth interviews to highlight differences between expectations and perceptions of residents as measured in survey data and the experiences of migrants in interacting with “host” residents as demonstrated in interviews in which experiences are described. All papers referred to “experience”, typically central to qualitative research in drawing out nuances and differences between individuals and groups.

Reviewed papers presented four key thematic areas, which are discussed below. The four themes are sociality, community, race and ethnicity; gender, identity and class; place and space and inequality, power and oppression.

Sociality, community, race and ethnicity were themes in all papers. Sociality and community suggested a focus on interrelations and interactions often between groups who are in a minority in their local area. In some cases, the group is not a minority but is lacking in power such as women (see, for instance, Horowitz, 2017; Reid and LeDrew, 2013). Communities in rural contexts of particular interest were referred to in 19 of the papers. References to location and the implications that relate to place are often contrasted with urban contexts.

With a clear emphasis on locating inequalities in social hierarchies, the papers highlighted social disparities and connections and disconnections, inclusions and exclusions. Among the many social aspects and social framings discussed were social support, social connections and relationships, intersecting social inequalities and social heterogeneity.

“Community” referred to the local level and groups within it such as urban lesbian communities or privileged groupings such as White communities as well as “a sense of community and knowing your neighbors” and the shaping of rural communities by white, heterosexual rural masculinities (Abelson, 2016, p. 1539). Community cohesion and racial/ethnic heterogeneity of rural communities and minority communities were discussed in Bares et al. (2019) The unique social and environmental context where individual, family and community levels are embedded collectively define the health experiences of individuals in Bice-Wigington and Morgan (2018).

Various communities were referred to, such as Muslim and Sikh communities in Bice-Wigington and Morgan (2018), LGBTQ communities (Anderson Carpenter, 2021), impoverished and working-class communities in Cairns (2013), migrant communities (Cook et al., 2021; Zufferey and Parkes, 2019), mining communities (Horowitz, 2017), Rural-farming, remote-reserve, urban South Asian and northern resource communities (Reid and LeDrew, 2013, p. 82), Canadian communities (Reid-Musson, 2018), White communities and Black communities (Woldoff et al., 2011).

Race was generally considered as a construct indicating “othering” (Abelson, 2016), discrimination (Anderson-Carpenter, 2021), heterogeneity (Bares et al., 2019) and institutionalised inequality (Leap, 2018; Reid-Musson, 2018). Race was also variously considered as defining social identity (Terman, 2020), social characteristics of influence (Walker et al., 2019) and as a key indicator, for example, related to “honor”-based violence/abuse cases (Walker, 2020). In those papers exploring race and ethnicity most deeply, the concern was with how gender, race, age and location intersected (Abelson, 2016; Zufferey and Parkes, 2019).

Different racial and ethnic groupings based on rural or urban location, racial composition and dominance of Black culture in their hometowns were apparent in Woldoff et al.’s (2011) study of Black college students at a rural predominantly white institution in West Virginia: A study of ideas of mobility amongst youth by Terman (2020) considered how connections were made in discussions to notions of class, race, gender and sexuality. The papers dealt with how gender, race, age and location intersected and how they were situated in social hierarchies and communities. A strong emphasis on social relations was evident in all the papers with the particularities of communities and how these are informed and limited by broader influences.

Gender and class were also strong intersectional themes, each being considered in 20 of the 21 papers with sexuality a theme in 15 papers. Inclusion of gender was in the form of differences for men and women in relation to place and their level of involvement in comparison to men in a mining area in Horowitz (2017). Visibility of women in agriculture was discussed in Calvário et al. (2020), civic engagement of women in relation to organisation of a festival in Leap (2018), migrant women workers in public spaces in Reid-Musson (2018) and the “hidden homeless” in Zufferey and Parkes (2019).

Gender norms and transgression were explored in Abelson’s study of trans men in rural areas in the Southeast and Midwest United States (2016), gender roles where women have a “gatekeeper” or primary contact role in relation to health services in rural areas in Bice-Wigington and Morgan (2018). Gender inequalities were central in Cook et al. (2021) where intersecting inequalities including age, dependency, gender, financial resources and family expectations in rural Australia were explored and in Horowitz’s (2017) exploration of culturally-based gender inequalities in the French territory of New Caledonia.

Gendered honour-based violence and culturalisation discussed in Walker (2020) concerned the placement of women away from family and their extended community to “safe” white communities in rural areas of England and Wales to protect them. Zufferey and Parkes (2019) expressed the need to consider gendered inequalities in connection with geographical, aged, classed and racialized inequalities in South Australia. Bonfanti (2015) discussed gender boundaries in intergenerational diversity in views of marriage amongst Punjabis living in northern Italy.

Gender and sexual diversity was a major theme in Johnston (2018) and Terman (2020) who, following previous scholars (Halberstam, 2005; Herring, 2010), used the term “metronormativity to describe the phenomena through which lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, and/or queer (LGBTQ) identities became urbanized through mobile, material, and discursive processes and where ‘success’ can thus only happen in urban places” (p. 22). Johnston (2018) argues:

Gender as a significant construct in limiting possibilities for women and the ways in which gendered and sexual diversity related to class and other aspects of culture in these papers drew out the role of women in social hierarchies and community engagement activities.

Hegemonic masculinities were mentioned in 13 of the papers and discussed most extensively in Abelson (2016) in considering trans men living in rural areas and Cairns (2013) on masculinities of dominance over the rural landscape in discourses of the rural idyll in Canada. The ways in which gender dominance was responded to and managed was brought out strongly in these papers.

Although all papers considered race and community, these factors were strongly related to place and how identification is shaped within place. Bares et al. (2019) emphasised that multiple inequalities and intersecting identities of race, ethnicity, class, sex, related to place have real impacts (in their study on opioid use). Extensive discussion of place was in the form of “place diversity” in Abelson (2016). Cairns (2013) referred to “place-narratives” and “relational constructions of place”, while Calvário et al. (2020) considered “place-based politics” to “pay attention to the interconnections between place-based struggles and space in the shaping of identities and politics” (p. 876). Cook et al. (2021) examined “relationships with place” and Glorius et al. (2020) focused on “place-based belonging” (p. 2) and “place attachment” (p. 3). Johnston (2018) discussed how place matters to the production of knowledge, and bodies and subjectivities as shaping and being shaped by place. Reid-Musson (2018) refers to spatialised rhythms within specific areas and regions of Ontario, Canada, Schafft et al. (2019) to place attachment in boomtowns in Pennsylvania and Terman (2020) to “intersectional qualities of social identities and place” (p. 21) in the Appalachian region of the USA.

A lack of knowledge of rural contexts by decision-makers was highlighted in a number of papers. Rural/urban differences in health outcomes for sexual minority adults are explored in Anderson-Carpenter (2021). Bares et al. (2019) note that knowledge and understanding about drug use in the USA is based on research from large urban areas with interventions often developed in urban settings and tested among predominantly White, middle to upper-class populations. A focus on place diversity was evident in Bice-Wigington and Morgan’s (2018) teaching note on health outcomes drawing out the role of women as gatekeepers or primary contact for family health care in Texas. Bares et al. (2019) show the importance of acknowledging subgroup differences among rural adolescents in understanding more precisely which populations are most affected by opioid use.

Rurality as both a socio-spatial construct and lived geography is highlighted in Cairns (2013, p. 625), who discussed “racialized spatial discourses” as a “deeply affective and contested, rather than fixed aspect of rural youth’s lives” (p. 638). Abelson (2016) challenged “the urban bias of queer and transgender research through scholarship on the lives of gender and sexual minorities” (p. 1535) and the predominant urban migration narrative that supports a dichotomy positioning rural and “uncivilized” in opposition to urban and “modern” (p. 1537).

Cairns’ (2013) extensive discussion focuses on how youth construct their own rural identities through racialized representations of urban and global “others”. Calvário et al. (2020) considered the rural-urban connections required to navigate food sovereignty. Normative pathways to adulthood tend to construct rural and remote places as “uncool” and urban places as spaces where education, labour and lifestyle opportunities can and should be sought as described by Cook et al. (2021, p. 3). For Reid and Ledrew (2013) argue that women being classified as “employable,” “with no regard for their multiple roles and urban, rural and remote contexts, has a deleterious impact on their health and wellbeing” (p. 90).

Terman states, “urban place, community, and culture are valued as the standard for success while rural place, community, and culture are devalued and met with scepticism, especially for highly educated people” (2020, p. 23). Woldoff et al. (2011) discussed the legacy of racism in rural locations and the potential alienation of Black urban students attending rural colleges (p. 1054). The solutions to homelessness are often urban-centred as noted by Zufferey and Parkes (2019), who noted the inability of homelessness services to deal with the “invisible complexity” of Indigenous mobility (p. 5).

The notion of space was also strongly considered in seven of the papers in addition to place. In Cairns (2013, p. 625), the use of “space” draws on Massey’s relational notion of place as a “lived world of a simultaneous multiplicity of spaces” (1994, p. 3). Referring to links across “scales of space and time” (2018, p. 291), Leap relates “how individuals organize and are made to organize themselves in space reflects and helps reproduce gendered inequalities” (2018, p. 298). With a group of women in rural, central USA organising a local festival, women were more involved, but activities related to women such as the quilt show were still confined to the margins of the festival. The ways in which gender norms were maintained in the festival due to an “ideology of separate spheres” as well as conformity to heterosexual expectations were evidence of little acknowledgement of social heterogeneity.

Lefebvre’s rhythm analysis (2004) is used in Reid-Musson (2018) to draw out daily rhythms representing “lived uses of space and times” reflecting and reproducing intersectional power categories through which “migrant subjects negotiate and sometimes transgress racial, sexual, gender, class, and colonial boundaries embedded in spatial and temporal orders” (p. 882). Abelson (2016) discussed the spaces accessible to gay, lesbian and transgender people in urban and rural contexts, arguing for greater complexity in considering the place of sexuality diversity in rural areas. Trans men who conform to rural ideals of masculinity and whiteness and who can move to places where they are unknown performing heterosexuality and working-class aesthetics can integrate into rural life simply as men. The key issue is that there are some ways in which gender-nonconforming people can be comfortable in rural areas with this example of trans men who in the end are conforming to rural ideals. In urban contexts, there are likely to be some ways in which gender and sexuality-diverse people might find more inclusion (Abelson, 2016).

Queer places discussed in Johnston (2018) as places and spaces that are a vital part of intersectional dynamics indicated “the way in which place matters to the intersectional production of feminist and queer geography”, with gay and lesbian spaces as “alternative places where support and security can be found” (p. 556). Reflection on the “powerful intersectional relationship between sexualities, genders, places and lived experiences” (p. 557) highlighted the importance of “safe” places for diverse sexualities.

Similarly, places where migrant workers could meet were highlighted in Reid-Musson (2018):

Parent et al. (2013) in their review of research approaches on intersectionality consider gender, LGBT, and racial and ethnic identities, refer to “location of persons within power structures” (p. 640) in relation to place. Alternatively, Cairns (2013) focused on the association of rural spaces with whiteness and “how students mobilize racial spatial imaginaries to locate themselves within a pure, white rural” (p. 624). For Calvário et al. (2020), “solidarities are constructed through uneven power relations and geographies – they are about practices of negotiating racialised, gendered and classed spaces of encounter” (p. 860). The aim for Schafft et al. (2019) was to consider “spatial approaches that recognize the characteristics within particular places, including relative community proximity to rapid natural resource development, that affects development impacts” (p. 297). Characteristics of place that impact on local possibilities for expression and belonging were considered in this section.

Inequality was mentioned more times and, in more papers, than power. Oppression and privilege were mentioned in some of the papers. Leap (2018) for whom “intersectionality incorporates previous work on inequalities, power, and resilience” in “considering the recursive relationships between multiple inequalities”, allows analysts and policymakers to more effectively identify how individuals and groups can sustain their communities and identify more effectively how they will be (dis)advantaged because of how their communities are rearranged (p. 302).

Power was a strong theme in the Walker et al. (2019) review of intersectionality as a framework in climate hazards research. Their focus was to provide an intersectional framework for “understanding the role of power relationships in constructing both vulnerable and privileged social positions, while also being attuned to expressions of human agency in local responses to climate risks” (p. 2). Identifying how “multiple systems of power (e.g., sexism, racism) operate together across levels of society to influence the exclusion or inclusion of certain knowledges, experiences, and access to material resources” (p. 5) was central to their investigation.

A strong focus on inequality and oppression was evident in Horowitz’s (2017) investigation of how “intersectional social positionings can inform engagements with industrial expansion” identifying how “Kanak women and men have internalized cultural norms – shaped by an oppressive colonial history – that delimit women’s options for negotiating with and resisting two mining projects” (p. 1434). Mining companies were able to use “customary” inequalities to disempower the communities by discounting women’s concerns despite the transformation of cultural norms across New Caledonia. The power of place and space in limiting and allowing the recognition and interaction of varied identities is evident in many of these studies.

The papers encompass a broad focus on the social and cultural factors contributing to inequalities with varying degrees of depth. The broadest focus considered social structures that define and shape identities within established and systematic parameters of prejudice and discrimination outlined in the following.

The papers reviewed employed intersectionality to greater and lesser extents. With some it was a matter of drawing on intersectionality to highlight different dimensions such as age rather than providing an in-depth analysis. Rubin et al. (2014) for example, argue for a subjective measure of social class and socio-economic status noting diversity among students based on factors such as age, ethnicity, indigeneity and rurality to include more context-sensitive measures. They do not go into how these factors play out in detail.

The papers considered the interrelations of both structural contexts and complex and changing needs in highlighting different aspects of social structures for personal development as in Glorius et al. (2020), “structural or indirect” violence as deeply rooted throughout social institutions in Horowitz (2017), inequalities reproduced by institutional structures in Mitchell and Rodis (2020), and connections between individual subjectivities and broader social structures, as well as local and global experiences in Reid and Ledrew (2013). Rhythms implicated in the structure and restructuring of social worlds through rhythmanalysis were examined in Reid-Musson (2018). Outcomes that are directly shaped, not only by the characteristics of settlement structure and populations but also by local histories are highlighted in Schafft et al. (2019). The essential role of social identities in analysing the interaction among structures, symbols and effects are articulated in Terman (2020). Explicit attention is given to power dynamics at multiple levels of analysis, including social structures and organisations (macro and meso levels) in Walker et al. (2019). Various structures, social processes and social representations were seen as shaped by the elements of race in Woldoff et al. (2011), from particular needs and deficits to urban-rural politics, structures and service systems, and going beyond the intersections of class, age, race and gender in Zufferey and Parkes (2019, p. 1). These intersectional analyses suggest intersectionality framed on difference is inherently built into concepts of the rural, which has its own intersectionality impacted by power structures.

The examination of power as it operates within social structures through concepts of “otherness”, “whiteness” and colonialism was evident in a number of papers. The concept of otherness centred in debates on the rural as othering and difference within the “cultural turn” in the early 1990s (Cloke, 2006; Murdoch and Pratt, 1993; Philo, 1992) was used to highlight the positioning of groups to create and sustain inequalities in four of the papers: “othering” in relation to belonging and exclusion in Abelson (2016), the construction of “global ‘others’” in Cairns (2013, p. 624); “othering processes” in approaching newcomers in Glorius et al. (2020, p. 3); and the feeling of “otherness” in Black college students in Woldoff et al. (2011, p. 1054). Whiteness as a structuring element was referred to in 17 of the papers with three maintaining it as a central element, for example, in considering the level of contact with white people for urban vs rural Black people in Woldoff et al. (2011). Whiteness as key to claiming sameness in predominantly white rural places (Abelson, 2016) and competing discourses of rurality in Canada, such as “the romanticised pure white rural of colonial history” (Cairns, 2013, p. 623) were also evidenced. Johnston (2018) discussed media spaces “filled with images of young, white, able-bodied and hyper heterosexual men”, and Leap (2018) acknowledged that what it means to be a woman “is fundamentally different for white and black women in the United States”. Terman (2020) noted participant colour, racial identity and sexual identity in discussing the intersection of identity and place through mobility with college students located in rural spaces and Cairns states:

For Johnston (2018), colonial histories must be confronted. There remains a “political imperative to acknowledge the confluence of gender, sex, race and indigeneity in our postcolonial nations” (p. 561). Colonialism was discussed extensively by Cairns (2013), who considered the discourse of the “romanticized pure white rural of colonial history” (p. 623). Horowitz (2017) examined women’s positioning as informed by culture and post-colonial politics, and Reid-Musson (2018) explored migrant negotiations of colonial boundaries as well as racial, sexual, gender and class boundaries. Walker et al. (2019) considered colonial assumptions and practices in the framing of mining development. The range of intersections from the papers are illustrated in Figure 3.

Crenshaw (1991) stated that “intersectionality might be more broadly useful as a way of mediating the tension between assertions of multiple identity and the ongoing necessity of group politics” (p. 1296). Others suggest an intersectional approach, as an approach that examines “the simultaneous interaction among two or more dimensions of oppression and/or privilege” (Norris et al., 2007, p. 335) to explore the complexity of inequality and the mutual construction and interactions of race and gender, social class and age inequalities (Norris et al., 2010, pp. 56–57). Some of these papers go further in recognising changes in social dynamics (Horowitz, 2017), drawing attention to the moving and changing forms of social interaction. The broader workings of race, gender, sexuality and class in rural US communities were highlighted in Abelson (2016, p. 1538) by examining trans men’s adoption of white, rural, masculine ideals.

The strongest analyses are those that consider power relations and highlight the impact on different members of the community. In a few cases, it was a matter of discovering more about the impact of multiple inequalities, for example on adolescent opioid use by considering residential context, parental education, race and ethnicity and sex in existing data (Bares et al., 2019). Dimensions were added to existing approaches that could potentially lead to deeper analysis and understanding if an intersectional approach is further applied.

In discussing this review, we contend that intersectionality needs to be encompassed as a holistic framework where intersectionality moves beyond the tokenism of taking two markers of oppression (e.g. social identities) to denote the ways in which specific groups, individuals and communities are marginalised. Intersectionality as a holistic or complete framework should include intersectionality as a philosophical stance. As a methodological design, it needs to use appropriate data analysis tools, that promote inclusionary practices to ensure giving voice to those groups which remain unheard. Intersectionality as a social justice project employs analysis tools that encompass varied experiences and place them within the broader context of power and institutional oppression. Intersectionality needs to take a decolonising and relational position, as without such a position, the pre-existing notions and practices, which are largely white, colonised and homogeneous to dominant social groups will be perpetuated, rather than hearing the voices of those who are compounded by oppression and disadvantage. Confronting privilege is one means of acknowledging the dominance and advantage of positions (Gibson, 2015; Evans and Lépinard, 2021).

Appreciation of the complex array of factors that contribute to rural contexts needs to be embraced in research through intersectional analysis. What is absent from some of the papers is an explanation or need to challenge the urban-centric and white-dominated views of intersectionality and the application of intersectionality excluding other social indicators in the impact of place. The notion of place within itself incorporates the social and without the social, place would become mere space (Johnston, 2018). The consideration of social identity markers with the exclusion of place (in particular, rural) of the individual, groups or communities in intersectional research and policy is problematic. Rural is a key identification that should also be incorporated as a form of social identity. However, to do so rurality needs to be denoted as not fixed but dynamic (Thomas et al., 2021).

As there are implications for research, so too are there implications for policy. Policy construction and delivery has traditionality been developed under a siloed approach not taking on board the nuances of intersections (Liasidou, 2016; Pandey and Johnson, 2019; La Barbera et al., 2023). Dealing with the connections between race, class and gender rather than considering each separately and how the power dynamics play out in different places must be confronted. The authors argue that an intersectional approach to policy development, analysis and evaluation is required to effectively address the intersecting complexities and diversity of contexts. Some factors are more important for some racial/ethnic groups than others in dealing with opioid use in rural areas for example (Bares et al., 2019, p. 303). Cole and Duncan (2023) argue that such an intersectional approach to policy ensures strategies and interventions are “congruent with target populations” (p. 62). Examining the notion of rural as an intersection in policy design is critical and takes the stance that rural and place do have implications that impact individuals, communities and societies.

We hope we have sufficiently highlighted how the reviewed papers indicate that intersectional research and policy-making requires questioning of interpretations of the rural.

This literature review represented papers from the Global North. While this focus is seen as a limitation of the review, it was imperative to consider nations with similar systems and governance models to undertake meaningful analysis. A further limitation identified was the interpretation of intersectionality presented in the literature review. There was not a common view or universalised conceptualisation of intersectionality by the authors in the articles reviewed. The authors of the originating articles and their use of language and their different conceptualisations of intersectionality created complexity in analysis presenting a limitation to data interpretation. The data provided objective findings that highlight gaps in knowledge, application or translation of the concept of intersectionality and intersectional research more broadly for future research. Future research could assess articles from across the globe (specifically, from areas and regions of the Global South) to compare and contrast applications and interpretations of intersectional research and practice in more varied contexts. There could also be greater focus on historical debates that have influenced the interaction of the concepts of intersectionality and rural, such as feminist approaches as well as more focus on confronting privilege and how that frames analyses.