Researching Rural Vulnerabilities & Social Economy: Preliminary Insights on the Intersectional Critical Systems Thinking set of methods

Ida Motteran; Marzia Bona; Cristina Dalla Torre; Alexandra Tomaselli

Intersectionality unveils how the interplay of multiple social factors alongside systemic structures perpetuate discrimination, oppression, inequality, and exclusion, such as racism, sexism, and homophobia (Crenshaw 1991, Misra et al. 2020). It also highlights how these dynamics evolve across varying historical, geographical, and social contexts, underscoring how power structures and systems shape the relationships between sameness and difference (Cho et al. 2013). As an epistemological lens (Collins & Bilge, 2016), intersectionality provides a robust analytical frame also to explore the complex social realities within social and solidarity economy (SSE) initiatives. This paper thus presents the methodological advancements and preliminary findings of the Horizon Europe project SERIGO (“Social Economy for Resilience, Inclusion, and Good Life in Rural Areas”) that aims to investigate the potential of SSE initiatives to address vulnerabilities and foster resilience in rural areas across 24 case studies in 12 countries. This contribution focuses on the integration of intersectional approach combined with critical systems thinking (Reynolds 2014, Stephens et al. 2018) within SERIGO’s research framework, showcasing its application in selected case studies. The guiding research question of SERIGO’s case studies is: How do social and solidarity economy initiatives address challenges related to rural vulnerabilities, and how do they leverage opportunities for resilience? To answer this, case studies incorporate what we have called an “intersectional critical system thinking (ICST)” approach to examine how social, political, and cultural elements interact to produce and sustain inequalities and vulnerabilities in rural contexts. The scope is twofold: first, we aim to uncover specific experiences of vulnerabilities produced by intersecting systems of discrimination, including questioning how research is conducted. Second, we aim to show how SSE address and deal with such intersectional social inequalities. Therefore, SERIGO’s methodological framework operationalizes ICST at three levels: research design, data collection, and data analysis. This approach adds depth to the case study methodology, prevents oversimplification and avoids homogenizing the experiences of different groups. It enables to gain a more critical insight on how SSE beneficiaries may be trapped, directly or indirectly, in social inequalities as well as to carefully assess the inclusiveness, openness and horizontal character of SSE governance. Our hypotheses from the application of the SERIGO intersectional methodology suggest two main critical points: * Understanding Vulnerability: By examining the intersection of social factors such as gender and ethnicity, the methodology is hypothesized to enable a nuanced understanding of how SSE beneficiaries experience and navigate vulnerabilities. For instance, an intersectional lens may expose how gender and cultural background influence access to resources and participation in decision-making processes within SSE initiatives. Accordingly, it is interesting to observe whether these SSE initiatives merely reflect the broader socio-economic dynamics of their operational contexts or, conversely, demonstrate an awareness of systemic exclusion and actively seek to counteract such dynamics through more inclusive practices. * Critical Assessment of Inclusivity: The ICST approach is anticipated to be instrumental in evaluating the inclusiveness, openness, and horizontal governance of SSE initiatives. For example, it is hypothesized to provide a deeper understanding of how governance structures can either perpetuate or mitigate social inequalities. These points underline the transformative potential of a ICST approach in ensuring that SSE initiatives not only mitigate vulnerabilities but also empower marginalized groups. This paper thus offers an initial discussion of the application of the proposed methodological framework, the tools and the processes used to integrate this ICST approach into the research design, data collection, and analysis. It also reflects on the challenges and opportunities encountered in applying these methods, offering practical recommendations. Finally, the paper contextualizes the findings within the broader discourse on SSE’s role in achieving a just socio-ecological transition. References Cho, S., Crenshaw, K. W., & McCall, L. (2013). Towards a Field of Intersectionality Studies: Theory, Applications, and Praxis. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 38(4), 785-810. doi: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/669608 Collins, P. H., & Bilge, S. (2016). Intersectionality. Cambridge: Polity. Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241-1299. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/1229039https://doi.org/10.2307/1229039 Reynolds, M. (2014). Equity-focused development evaluation using critical systems thinking. Evaluation, 20(1), 75-95. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389013516054 Misra, J., Curington, C. V., & Green, V. M. (n.d.). Methods of intersectional research. Sociological Spectrum, 41(1), 9-28. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/02732173.2020.1791772 Stephens, A., Lewis, E., & Reddy, S. (2018). Inclusive Systemic Evaluation (ISE4GEMs): A New Approach for gender equality, environments and marginalized voices. New York: UN Women

Researching Rural Vulnerabilities & Social Economy: Preliminary Insights on the Intersectional Critical Systems Thinking set of methods

(2)