Intersectionality in participatory methodologies: systematic review and evaluation framework

In recent years, intersectionality has become a key analytical tool for understanding the multiple and simultaneous forms of oppression experienced by particular social groups (Vigoya, 2016). Originating in Black feminist studies (Crenshaw, 1989), this perspective has moved beyond its traditional theoretical bases to constitute a methodological approach that questions how knowledge is produced, who is included and which voices remain excluded (Fine et al., 2021). At the same time, due to their transformative nature and orientation towards the redistribution of epistemic power, participatory methodologies have established themselves as fundamental allies of the intersectional perspective (Collins, 2017).

It is urgent to rethink research processes based on theoretical foundations that not only describe these realities but also allow us to intervene in them. Participatory methodologies facilitate the construction of situated knowledge, co-knowledge and forms of organization (Collins and Bilge, 2016). Intersectionality is often treated primarily as an analytical category applied in the post-fieldwork phases rather than as a structuring principle of methodological design (Bowleg, 2008; Cho et al., 2013). This omission reveals the need to advance towards participatory approaches that integrate intersectionality from the very formulation of the research problem.

Intersectionality, as an epistemological tool, makes visible how different forms of oppression - such as racism, patriarchy, heteronormativity, ableism or class inequality - intersect to generate specific and situated experiences of exclusion (Crenshaw, 1989). In this sense, Hooks (1981) and other authors have long emphasized the need to break with the idea of the universal subject in knowledge production, demanding the active incorporation of the voices of those who face multiple axes of oppression.

From a methodological standpoint, this perspective has been difficult to translate into concrete procedures. On the other hand, Thomas et al. (2021), cited in Redshaw et al. (2025), point out that scholarship on intersectionality remains minimal. As Rice et al. (2019) warn, debates persist around the scope, objectives and axiological foundations of intersectionality as a critical theory. These methodological challenges have led to research experiences that seek to develop more complex and situated approaches through participatory strategies aimed at redistributing epistemic power.

Participatory Action Research (PAR) and Community-Based Research (CBR) represent particularly suitable frameworks for accommodating this perspective, as both methodologies share the central objective of democratizing knowledge, recognizing the agency of communities and challenging traditional hierarchies in research (Fine et al., 2021). When these methodologies are designed and implemented through an intersectional approach, they become powerful tools for social transformation and move towards forms of epistemic justice (Fine et al., 2021).

Recent research has explored the potential of intersectional PAR to challenge exclusionary practices and generate processes of community empowerment. For example, Wheeler et al. (2020) demonstrate how this approach enables hidden knowledge to surface, dismantles discriminatory labels and constructs alternative critical narratives. Through the creation of heterogeneous spaces and the use of adapted methodologies, such as conceptual mapping or deliberative dialogue, it has been possible to strengthen the participation of underrepresented groups, including racialized young parents and racialized LGBTI+ communities (Bailey and Trudy, 2019).

Despite conceptual synergies, methodological integration between intersectionality and participatory methodologies remains limited. As Fine et al. (2021) note, intersectionality is often cited as a theoretical foundation in participatory studies but is rarely articulated as an organizing principle of research. This mismatch reveals a significant epistemic gap: although both perspectives share a transformative vocation and a critique of dominant knowledge, their methodological convergence has not been sufficiently systematized or problematized in the scientific literature.

One of the main challenges lies in how to operationalize intersectional principles without diluting their critical power. The proposal of mixed methodologies, such as the combination of conceptual mapping and deliberative dialogues, represents an attempt to capture the complexity of experiences shaped by multiple axes of subordination (Bailey and Trudy, 2019). However, as Rice et al. (2019) note, tensions persist between the normativity of methodological designs and the political radicalism of intersectionality as a decolonial, anti-racist and anti-patriarchal approach.

In response to this scenario, proposals have emerged advocating a critical intersectional PAR that, beyond the representation of multiple identities, focuses on the power structures that configure inequalities. This shift implies not only centring the voices of those who have been historically silenced but also problematizing the very devices of research (Wheeler et al., 2020). From this perspective, participatory methodologies are not limited to “giving voice” to communities but create conditions for those voices to influence the design, implementation and transformation of social practices.

Moving towards a participatory intersectional approach requires a critical review of our ways of researching and of the institutional frameworks that underpin them. The adoption of these methodologies, with all their complexity and transformative potential, not only strengthens the legitimacy of research processes but also increases their capacity to influence the design of public policies, social programmes and organizationally situated processes (Morrow et al., 2022).

This systematic literature review seeks to offer an initial overview of recent publications in order to identify those participatory methodologies that most robustly integrate the seven dimensions of the intersectional perspective which, according to Brizuela (2024), can be incorporated into research processes. Three specific objectives are proposed:

1. To identify participatory methodologies that incorporate the intersectional approach in a more robust way.

2. To describe the dimensions of the intersectional perspective applied in the identified participatory methodologies.

3. To analyze the benefits associated with the use of participatory methodologies that integrate an intersectional approach.

A systematic literature review was conducted, a methodology that enables research questions to be addressed through a rigorous, structured and reproducible process.

An exploratory systematic review was chosen, as the objective is to analyze and synthesize the existing knowledge in the scientific literature concerning the articulation between participatory methodologies and intersectionality (Estarli et al., 2016). This methodological approach allows for the identification, evaluation and synthesis of previous studies in order to answer specific research questions and draw conclusions from already published data.

To ensure transparency, traceability and methodological quality, the review followed the guidelines established in the PRISMA 2020 declaration (Page et al., 2021). These guidelines were applied across all phases of the review, including the formulation of objectives, search strategy, study selection, analysis, and presentation of results.

A systematic search was then conducted. In line with the general objective of the research, three main thematic areas were considered: (1) methodologies, (2) participatory research and (3) community-based participatory research. The final search expression used was: “methodology” AND “methodologies” AND “participatory research” OR “community-based participatory research”. This search equation was applied to the title, abstract and keyword fields. The search was carried out in both English and Spanish to ensure coverage of the broadest and most up-to-date international scientific literature, with particular focus on Latin America and Europe.

Five academic databases of recognized prestige - Scopus, WoS, ERIC, SciELO and Dialnet. The search was limited to the last seven years (2018–2024) to identify recent methodological innovations. The selection of these sources was based on their rigour, thematic and geographical coverage and their capacity to represent diverse methodological and epistemological approaches.

1. Scopus, one of the largest multidisciplinary scientific databases, provides access to peer-reviewed publications from around the world.

2. Web of Science (WoS) was selected for its recognized quality and its robust archive in the social sciences.

3. ERIC (Education Resources Information Center) was included for its specific focus on educational research, which is particularly relevant for identifying studies on participatory methodologies and intersectionality.

4. Dialnet was included as one of the principal databases of scientific production in Spanish and other Ibero-Romance languages.

5. SciELO (Scientific Electronic Library Online) is a multidisciplinary scientific database that provides open access to academic journals primarily from Latin America and the Caribbean.

The systematic search focused on participatory methodologies in general, without being restricted to an intersectional perspective or to a specific group. This methodological decision aligns with the objective of the research. From the initial phases of the search, a recurring pattern was identified: most of the studies reviewed focused on vulnerable populations.

The time frame of the review (2018–2024) was defined by substantive criteria. First, the rise of Latin American intersectional feminism after 2018 (Borrero and Paz-Cardona, 2024). Second, the incorporation of intersectionality into European education policies was examined in the context of a Horizon 2020–funded project (Dunajeva and Siarova, 2024). Third, the consolidation of research focussing on the analysis of transnational education policies (Robert and Yu, 2018). This seven-year period refines the inclusion and exclusion criteria and enables the capture of the recent expansion of the approach.

In the first phase, the systematic search strategy produced a total of n = 19,885 results (WoS n = 6,951; Scopus n = 3,312; ERIC n = 1,860; Dialnet n = 7,734; and SciELO n = 28). Subsequently, inclusion criteria were applied to filter the results according to the objectives and scope of this review:

1. Publications from the last seven years (2018–2024)

2. Texts written in English or Spanish

3. Research conducted in Latin American or European contexts

4. Fields of knowledge within the social and legal sciences, humanities and arts and health sciences

This initial screening reduced the sample to n = 1,760 documents (WoS n = 511; Scopus n = 265; ERIC n = 118; Dialnet n = 849; and SciELO n = 11). After removing duplicates across databases, a final sample of n = 1,634 records was obtained.

Next, the titles and abstracts were reviewed, applying the following exclusion criteria:

1. Studies employing an exclusively quantitative approach

2. Texts in languages other than English or Spanish

3. Books, book chapters and conference proceedings

4. Studies using instruments that are not transferable to the socio-educational field

5. Articles lacking an explicit methodological description

6. Research in which the participating population is not involved in the study design

After thc consisted of n = 46 articles ( Annex 2). Figure 1 illustrates the methodology used, following the phases proposed by Page et al. (2021).

Figure 2 summarizes the graphical distribution of the reviewed articles by topic of study. The most frequent fields are health (n = 13), social studies (n = 13) and education (n = 10).

Figure 3 shows the graphical distribution of the reviewed documents by methodological design. The most frequent are studies employing participatory methodologies or PAR (n = 21), Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) (n = 6) and visual methods (n = 2). Designs that appear only once are identified separately, as they hold independent relevance for the analysis.

Following the review and descriptive synthesis, the articles (n = 46) were analyzed to extract the relevant data. The articles were read and their content examined. The team then proceeded to the synthesis phase of the analyzed content. Three figures were used to organize these results and support their discussion, which is presented in the following section. The raw data can be reviewed in Marcial et al. (2025).

This section synthesizes and expands upon the empirical findings of the review, organized around the seven intersectional dimensions analyzed and the map of associated benefits. Comparative evidence and cross-sectional patterns between methodologies are highlighted. Table 1 summarizes the participatory methodologies and their description.

Methodologies with greater intersectional coherence translate intersectional principles into operational design decisions: stable participation mechanisms, temporalities adjusted to community life, culturally relevant instruments and situated feedback (Fernández Camacho, 2020; Macías-Macías and Sevilla-García, 2020; Miranda and Mayorga, 2024; Ramos et al., 2022; Gandía and Cena, 2018). These experiences also reveal hybrid configurations that expand the languages of data production and foster the participation of subgroups that are usually underrepresented. Figure 4 shows the historiogram of the percentage of intersectional dimensions for each participatory methodology.

In many cases, the research analyzed is initiated at the explicit request of the affected population and is supported by periodic mechanisms of collective validation. In the fields of territory and heritage, indigenous and neighbourhood communities request mapping processes to make landscapes and cultural practices visible (Carrión and Albert, 2022; Silva et al., 2019). In community health, local agents and patients define needs and prioritize lines of action before designing interventions (Hasson et al., 2022; McKenna et al., 2023). In contexts of deprivation and schooling, residents and adolescents lead diagnostic processes using Photovoice and Our Voice to present proposals to the authorities (Jackson and Ronzi, 2021; Montes et al., 2022). In politically engaged and arts-based methodologies, women's collectives and agricultural communities propose objectives linked to memory, care and biocultural sovereignty (Fernández Camacho, 2020; Rivera López et al., 2020; Gandía and Cena, 2018).

Three forms of co-definition predominate: (1) participatory workshops and cartographies that prioritize problems based on local categories (Silva et al., 2019; Nebot-Gómez de Salazar et al., 2020; Ramos et al., 2022); (2) co-design meetings and multi-stakeholder dialogue that translate needs into operational objectives (Hasson et al., 2022; McKenna et al., 2023; Pérez-Rincón, 2022); and (3) creative and expressive techniques where the problem emerges from artistic practices and bodily narratives (Phillips et al., 2022; Gandía and Cena, 2018; Rivera López et al., 2020). Studies using digital tools and participatory design adapt prototypes according to problems identified by users (Lister et al., 2021). In all cases, early participation prevents imposed approaches and enhances the contextual relevance of the research focus.

Epistemological plurality - though less frequent overall - is more deeply integrated when community, indigenous and artistic knowledge serve as conceptual pillars rather than as complementary inputs. Tehêy is grounded in the epistemic logic of Pataxoop (Miranda and Mayorga, 2024). The practice links epistemologies of Good Living with everyday actions (Macías-Macías and Sevilla-García, 2020). Theatrical social cartography legitimizes children's and performative languages as ways of conceptualizing territory (Ramos et al., 2022). Arts-based approaches recognize creation as a valid mode of situated theorization (Gandía and Cena, 2018; Phillips et al., 2022). Multisectoral dialogic proposals combine frameworks and metrics from different disciplines to construct complex problems (Malagrida et al., 2023).

The best-rated studies not only describe internal diversity but also incorporate it into their design: segmentation by subgroups, differentiated instruments and adjustment of timing and support. In school contexts, dynamics are adapted for students with functional and cultural diversity (González-Calvo and Gerdin, 2023; Martínez-Fernández et al., 2020). In health and community settings, groups are segmented to ensure minority voices are represented (Saab et al., 2024; Parry-Davies, 2020). In heritage and territorial studies, heterogeneous positions are integrated according to location and activity (Orozco and Lorenzen, 2023; Carrión and Pérez, 2022). In politically engaged and arts-based methodologies, the diversity of trajectories (age, gender, rurality) guides the working mechanisms (Fernández Camacho, 2020; Rivera López et al., 2020).

The comparative analysis identifies eleven benefits, whose intensity varies according to the methodology. (1) Decision-making power – shared governance through assemblies and circles (politically engaged methodology; practical). (2) Community cultural autonomy and wellbeing – reinforcement of identities, memory and territorial connections (Tehêy; social cartography). (3) Co-research – co-design and implementation of activities by community representatives (cartographies; arts-based). (4) Methodological ownership – control over protocols, timing and data use (Tehêy; cartography; creative encounters). (5) Innovation in knowledge construction – hybrid devices such as cartography–theatre, community laboratories and interactive documentaries (Ramos et al., 2022; Macías-Macías and Sevilla-García, 2020; Mikelli, 2021). (6) Reduction of power inequalities – rotation of roles and recognition of non-academic knowledge (politically engaged; practical). (7) Reproductive justice – emerging in Tehêy and enacted through the connection between care, the sustainability of life and the territory. (8) Ethical dimension – collective agreements on consent, cultural rhythms and devolution (cartography; politically engaged). (9) Challenging political decisions – contestation of official narratives and resistance to extractive policies (cartography; Tehêy). (10) Facilitation of safe spaces – environments of trust and reparation (creative encounters; politically engaged). (11) Unusable data (risk) – preventive management (collective verification) and, where necessary, the deliberate protection of sensitive knowledge (practical; Tehêy; cartography).

As shown in Figure 5, there is a positive trend between the percentage of integrated intersectional dimensions and the percentage of reported benefits: the greater the intersectional coherence, the greater the benefits. Methodologies with structural integration are positioned in the upper-right quadrant. Approaches with intermediate levels of integration are grouped in the centre of the diagram (arts-based research, visual methods, co-labour-active, Photovoice, public patient participation), showing benefits proportional to their level of incorporation. The lower-left quadrant has proposals with lower levels of integration and benefits (e.g. creative methods, child-centred methods, citizen science and standardized participatory designs). Additionally, specific misalignments are observed (e.g. social mapping, which shows high integration but medium benefits). Overall, the figure reinforces that not all participation is intersectional, and that only cross-cutting integration is associated with broader and more lasting impacts.

This systematic review has made it possible to identify how participatory methodologies that incorporate an intersectional perspective operate across different contexts and with varying degrees of depth. The results show that, although there is progress in the integration of key dimensions, the frequency and form of application vary significantly between studies. This heterogeneity reveals, on the one hand, the flexibility of the approaches and, on the other, the absence of an operational foundation that guarantees their systematic implementation.

From a critical perspective, the methodologies with the greatest intersectional integration - politically engaged methodology (Fernández Camacho, 2020), Community and Good Living practice (Macías-Macías and Sevilla-García, 2020), Tehêy de la Pesca do Conhecimento (Miranda and Mayorga, 2024), social cartography (Carrión and Albert, 2022) and expressive creative encounters (Gandía and Cena, 2018) - show that intersectionality is not merely an analytical framework but a set of methodological decisions: “stop to think” sessions that redistribute voice and time (Fernández Camacho, 2020), “community laboratories” that prioritize local cycles and categories (Macías-Macías and Sevilla-García, 2020), or ritual validation protocols that place epistemic authority in Indigenous leaders (Miranda and Mayorga, 2024). In social cartography, mapping workshops and territorial restitution function as mechanisms for community control over results (Carrión and Albert, 2022), while in expressive creative encounters, the body and art create safe, relational spaces for processing experiences of violation (Gandía and Cena, 2018).

Many studies that define themselves as participatory and intersectional fail to operationalize all dimensions. Epistemological plurality is less frequent and is sometimes limited to testimonies or cultural gestures with no impact on the study's foundation (Collins and Bilge, 2020). Conversely, in biocultural knowledge, integration does transform the framework: the conservation of native maize in Oaxaca articulates local agricultural knowledge with scientific criteria on an equal footing (Rivera López et al., 2020); likewise, Tehêy formalizes Pataxoop epistemologies within the methodological architecture (Miranda and Mayorga, 2024). Similarly, the recognition of heterogeneity tends to be merely descriptive if not accompanied by adjustments to instruments: when activities are segmented by age, gender and cultural mediation is employed, the effective participation of subgroups increases (Saab et al., 2024; Ramos et al., 2022). In community health, CBPR that incorporates advisory committees and co-analyses improves the traceability of decisions with patients and families (Hasson et al., 2022; McKenna et al., 2023).

In terms of benefits, methodologies with greater intersectional coherence generate more diverse and profound impacts: cultural autonomy and well-being (cartographies that reinforce memory and territorial ties) (Carrión and Albert, 2022); epistemological innovation (practice as a hybrid artefact combining assembly, workshop and action) (Macías-Macías and Sevilla-García, 2020); and safe spaces (artistic devices and situated listening) (Gandía and Cena, 2018). Conversely, reproductive justice and direct political advocacy appear only marginally, except in experiences that explicitly contest public decisions (e.g. geoparks as social laboratories) (Orozco López and Lorenzen, 2023). Likewise, citizen science initiatives with rural adolescents demonstrate co-ownership of data and local micro-actions but require greater formalization to ensure institutional sustainability (Montes et al., 2022).

Among the gaps, the absence of agreed indicators for assessing the intersectional perspective stands out, making comparisons and the identification of replicable good practices difficult. Most do not explicitly state decision-making mechanisms - posing a risk of nominal intersectionality (Bowleg, 2012). Tensions are also under-documented, including community conflicts, institutional resistance or friction between academic and community times (Crenshaw, 1989; Collins and Bilge, 2020).

The findings align with the objectives of the study. Regarding which methodologies facilitate intersectional integration, variants of PAR/activist approaches, social cartography and contextual devices (practi-torio, Tehêy) demonstrate greater potential owing to their alignment between principles and practice. In terms of which methodologies generate the most benefits, intersectional coherence is associated with sustainability on three levels: temporal (continuity and replication of assemblies, mappings or protocols after completion), community (appropriation, local leadership, data stewardship) and institutional (anchoring in curricula, services or budgets).

This work not only systematizes dimensions for evaluating intersectionality but also distinguishes the participatory from the intersectional. Participatory refers to procedural inclusion; intersectional requires power analysis, recognition of overlapping positions and verifiable mechanisms of epistemic redistribution and heterogeneity. A project can be co-designed without being intersectional if it does not problematize how intersections structure access to speech, risks and benefits. On this basis, an evaluative framework and checklist (seven dimensions, twenty-one indicators) are offered to differentiate between participation without intersectionality and participation with structural integration, thereby enabling comparison of coherence between design, redistribution of power, recognition of diversity and benefits. This checklist is presented in  Annex 1.

Finally, critically evaluating intersectionality through a systematic review faces structural limits. The reliance on indexed databases privileges Western academic production and canonical formats, rendering community and indigenous knowledge, as well as non-canonical practices (neighbourhood reports, oral archives), largely invisible. PRISMA-type protocols presuppose commensurability, which can flatten the relational and affective dimensions of situated methodologies and misalign with the temporalities of ongoing processes, making it difficult to assess sustainability. Moreover, positionality and asymmetries between authorships and institutions influence quality judgements and what is recognized as “evidence”, particularly when data are ethically unpublishable (e.g. sacred sites, care networks, at-risk witnesses). These limitations reinforce the relevance of the proposed evaluation framework for auditing intersectional coherence in future research using explicit and transparent criteria.

The findings show uneven integration of intersectional dimensions: the social demand for research and participation in problem definition appear more regularly, while epistemological plurality and recognition of population and territorial heterogeneity are implemented in a more irregular or descriptive way. Methodological families with greater intersectional coherence - variants of PAR/militant approaches, social cartography and situated community devices - consistently align principles and procedures and yield broader benefits, with sustainability understood in temporal (post-project continuity), community (local ownership and leadership), and institutional (anchoring in protocols, curricula or services) terms.

The main contribution of this work is methodological: it proposes an evaluative framework of intersectional coherence with an operational checklist of seven dimensions and twenty-one indicators, designed to plan, monitor and compare participatory projects. This instrument makes it possible to distinguish clearly between the participatory and the intersectional and renders the integration of intersectionality into sampling decisions, instrument design, governance, analysis and feedback of results auditable. Its use is applicable to different profiles: research teams (formative design and evaluation), policy and funding managers (comparable quality criteria) and community organizations (negotiation of roles, times, data and decision-making).

The implications for practice point to three fronts. First, operationalize intersectionality beyond procedural inclusion by incorporating plural epistemic frameworks as a conceptual basis and adapting instruments, languages and times to internal and territorial diversity. Second, institutionalize shared governance and methodological and data ownership through explicit agreements on decision-making, custody and situated feedback. Third, improve traceability through records of decisions, conflicts, learning and data management, whose dissemination may be ethically inappropriate.

Finally, several lines of work are identified to consolidate this methodological field: validation of the framework and checklist across different contexts and disciplines; studies on inter-evaluator reliability and indicator sensitivity; integration with review protocols (e.g. intersectional PRISMA adaptations); and longitudinal analyses linking levels of intersectional coherence with community and institutional outcomes. Overall, advancing towards a structural, rigorous and assessable integration of intersectionality will strengthen both the quality and the transformative reach of participatory research in contexts of inequality.