Intersectionality of Disabled People through a Disability Studies, Ability-Based Studies, and Intersectional Pedagogy Lens: A Survey and a Scoping Review

Abstract

Disabled people face many social problems in their lives, as outlined by the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. These problems often increase when disabled people also belong to another marginalized identity. The first aim of this study was to report on the extent and what intersectionalities are mentioned in academic abstracts in conjunction with disabled people. Various intersectional concepts are used to discuss intersectionality-related issues. The second aim was to ascertain the use of intersectionality-based concepts to discuss the intersectionality of disabled people. The field of intersectional pedagogy emerged to discuss the teaching of intersectionality linked to various marginalized identities. The third aim was to ascertain the coverage of how to teach about the intersectionality of disabled people in the intersectional pedagogy-focused academic literature we covered. Ability judgments are a general cultural reality. Many ability judgment-based concepts have been developed within the disability rights movement, disability studies, and ability-based studies that could be used to discuss the impact of ability judgments on the intersectionality of disabled people and enrich the area of intersectional pedagogy. The fourth aim was to ascertain the use of ability judgment-based concepts to analyze the intersectionality of disabled people. To obtain data for the four aims, we performed a manifest coding and qualitative content analysis of abstracts obtained from SCOPUS, the 70 databases of EBSCO-HOST and Web of Science, and an online survey in which we ascertained the views of undergraduate students on social groups experiencing negative ability-based judgments. As to the 34,830 abstracts that contained the term “intersectionality”; the 259,501 abstracts that contained the phrase “intersection of”; and the 11,653 abstracts that contained the 35 intersectionality-based concepts, the numbers for these abstracts that also contained the disability terms we used for our analysis were 753, 2058, and 274 abstracts, respectively, so 2.16%, 0.79%, and 2.35%, indicating a low academic engagement with the intersectionality of disabled people. We found many different intersectionalities mentioned in conjunction with disabled people, but most were mentioned only once or twice, with the main ones mentioned being race and gender. The literature covered made little use of most of the 52 intersectionality-based concepts we looked at (35 identified before the study and 17 more identified during the analysis). The literature covered also did not link to the area of intersectional pedagogy. Of the 25 ability judgment-based concepts, only the term ableism was used. As to the surveys, most students saw many of the social groups experiencing negative ability judgments, suggesting that the ability judgment-based concepts might be a useful tool to discuss intersectional consequences of ability judgments, such as intersectional conflict. Our data might be useful for intersectionality studies, intersectional pedagogy, disability studies, ability-based studies, and other academic fields that engage with intersectionality or with disability issues. Our study might also be useful for academics covering various topics to engage with the intersectionality of disabled people as part of their inquiries.

1. Introduction

Intersectionality is a concept coined by Kimberlé Crenshaw [1,2] and further developed by many Black feminists [3,4]. As it is stated, “Intersectionality was developed by Black feminists to counter approaches that failed to consider how multiple intersecting identities together shape our experiences of oppression and privilege” [3] (p. 995). By now, intersectionality is used to cover many intersecting marginalized identities [4] and has moved towards the realm of organizational change [5]. For example, the “European Union-Intersectionality Framework” [6] has been proposed “to dissect the varied and conflicting ways in which intersectionality is operationalized within EU policies” [6] (p. 1). Intersectionality is employed as a lens to analyze many topics, such as a sense of belonging [7], armed conflict [8,9,10], environmental conflict and crisis [11], and STEM education [12]. It is argued that the concept of intersectionality has an important role in bioethical research by “making inequities visible, creating better health data collections and embracing self-reflection” [13] (p. 1), and intersectionality is seen to fit “into the overarching goal of bioethics to work toward social justice in health care” [13] (p. 1). Intersectionality is used as a lens in many fields, such as peace and conflict studies [14], organization studies [15], critical autism studies [16], disability studies [17], and “the intersectionality of critical animal, disability, and environmental studies” [18]. The field of intersectional studies emerged—a field that has been defined as “representing three loosely defined sets of engagements: the first consisting of applications of an intersectional framework or investigations of intersectional dynamics, the second consisting of discursive debates about the scope and content of intersectionality as a theoretical and methodological paradigm, and the third consisting of political interventions employing an intersectional lens” [19] (p. 785) (see also, [20]).

Being a disabled person1 is one marginalized identity that often intersects with other marginalized identities, which in turn frequently leads to intersectionality-based problems disabled people have to deal with on top of the problems they encounter based on their identity of being a disabled person [21,22]. However, it is argued that disabled people are often neglected in the intersectionality discourse [21,23]. Therefore, the first aim of this study was to report on the extent of coverage of disabled people within the intersectionality-focused academic literature, but also what intersectionalities are mentioned in academic abstracts in conjunction with disabled people.

Through our pre-study research, we identified 35 intersectionality-based concepts that were used to further the intersectional analysis [3,4,5,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72]. All of these 35 intersectionality-based concepts could be used to enrich the discussions, and the analysis of the intersectionality challenges disabled people, such as disabled women face [21,22]. Therefore, as a second aim, we investigated the presence of these 35 intersectionality-based concepts in the academic literature we covered.

Intersectional pedagogy explores best practices for effective teaching and learning about the intersections of identity [73]. “Intersectional pedagogy (IP) is an educational intervention to help learners develop a social justice consciousness about interlocking systems of oppression that create injustice at the individual, group, and societal levels” [74] (p. 1). Given this premise, it is important that the intersectional pedagogy literature engages with how this goal might be achieved in relation to disabled people and to identify and address the specific challenges teaching about the intersectionality of disabled people poses for intersectional pedagogy. Therefore, the third aim was to ascertain the use of intersectional concepts and intersectional pedagogy to discuss the intersectionality of disabled people.

Being ability-judged is a general cultural reality, and ability judgments are often used to justify the social superiority of one group over another [75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83] and as a tool for social oppression [84,85,86,87,88]. Negative ability judgments are a main intersectionality challenge that disabled people and other marginalized groups face [21,22]. Disabled people are one group that experiences systemic discrimination (disablism) because of being negatively ability-judged. Over 25 ability judgment-based concepts have been coined within the disability rights movement and the fields of disability studies and ability-based studies to analyze ability-based expectations, judgments, norms, and conflicts [76,77,78,79,80,81,82,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103]. All these ability judgment-based concepts could be used to analyze the impact of ability judgments on intersectionality challenges in general and in relation to disabled people and the specific intersectionality challenges highlighted by the 35 intersectionality-based concepts. The ability judgment-based concepts could also be used as tools within intersectional pedagogy. Therefore, the fourth aim was to ascertain the use of ability judgment-based concepts to analyze the intersectionality coverage of disabled people.

To fulfill the four aims, we asked five research questions.

(1)

To what extent and which intersectionalities are mentioned in academic abstracts in conjunction with disabled people?

(2)

Which and how are intersectionality-based concepts used in academic abstracts to discuss the intersectionality of disabled people?

(3)

Is intersectional pedagogy used in academic abstracts to discuss the intersectionality of disabled people?

(4)

Which ability judgment-based concepts are used in academic abstracts to discuss the intersectionalities of disabled people?

(5)

What are the views of undergraduate students on people from various social groups experiencing negative ability-based judgments as depicted by the different ability judgment-based concepts?

1.1. Intersectionality and Intersectionality-Based Concepts

Kimberlé Crenshaw coined the term intersectionality. As it is explained by Aiyegbusi,

“She did so in a legal context whereby she proposed it as an analytical framework for capturing and elaborating on the precise nature of discrimination that occurs when there are multiple axes of identity vulnerable to oppression. The people Crenshaw represented were typically Black, working-class women who had previously been erased and subsumed within the normative and more power-advantaged accounts of single-axis discrimination that were experienced by white women and Black men. These accounts failed to represent Black women who were allocated ever closer to the margins, experienced worse discrimination than either white women or Black men, and who, because of accepted standards, were unable to demonstrate this and, therefore, defend their claims. There was no recognised framework to capture the discrimination they faced prior to Crenshaw’s intersectional framework”

[4] (p. 30)

Or, in other words,

“The concept of intersectionality was brought to light through the lived experiences of Black women in the United States and coined by Black feminist activists and academics to counter White feminism, which purported to present a universal experience of women. Black feminist activists and academics argued that examining or analyzing a single axis of gender, race, or sexuality leaves the experiences of groups such as Black women and queer or trans people of colour erased and decontextualized”

[104] (p. 957)

By now, intersectionality is used to cover many intersecting forms of discrimination [4] and has moved towards the realm of organizational change [5]. Employing in our pre-study the databases we used in our study, the term “intersectionality” generated over 8477 hits when we searched the abstracts in the database Scopus; 22,272 abstracts of peer-reviewed articles in the 70 databases of EBSCO-HOST (duplicates likely between the 70 databases); and 5842 abstracts in Web of Science, indicating the importance of engaging with the concept in relation to disabled people. In preparation for this scoping review, we also identified 35 intersectionality-based concepts that are used to further the analysis of intersectionality related challenges and problems marginalized groups experience (“intersectional conflict*”, “intersectional experience*”, “Intersectional self”, “Intersectional hostilit*”, “intersectional struggle*”, “intersectional adjustment*”, “intersectional solidarit*”, “intersectional consciousness”, “intersectional oppression”, “intersectional privilege*”, “intersectional invisibilit*”, “intersecting identit*”, “intersectional identit*”, “intersectional disempowerment*”, “intersectional empowerment*”, “intersectional effect*”, “intersectional matrix”, “intersectional fairness”, “intersectional bias”, “intersectional microaggression*”, “intersectional minority stress*”, “intersectional identity stress*”, “intersectional stigma”, “intersectional discrimination*”, “intersectional discrimination index”, “intersectional activis*”, “intersectional inequit*”, “intersectional inequalit*”, “intersectional equit*”, “intersectional equalit*”, “intersectional justice”, “intersectionality justice”, “intersectional self-advocac*”, “intersectional advocac*” and “intersectional pedagog*” [3,4,5,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,105]).

To expand on a few intersectionality-based concepts considered in this study. Intersectional stigma “refers to the confluence of stigma toward multiple minoritized identities generated by interlocking systems of structural oppression” [65] (p. 2). Intersectional invisibility covers the dynamic that people with two or more marginalized identities feel more invisible than people who have one or zero marginalized identities [31,37]. The concept of “intersectional conflict” highlights the problem that if one has two or more intersecting marginalized identities, each of these identities could be perceived differently by the person and/or by others [24,25]. Four types of intersectional encounters between an individual and an institution are discussed namely intersectional hostility, intersectional struggle, intersectional adjustment, and intersectional solidarity [24]. In the case of intersectional hostility, both the individual and the institution do not like a specific identity the person has; intersectional struggle: the institution does not like that identity but the individual does; intersectional adjustment: the person does not like that identity but the institution does; and intersectional solidarity: both the individual and the institution like that identity [24]. Although in [24] the focus is on individuals versus institutions, the institutions could be substituted for many other social actors. Intersectional consciousness refers to people’s awareness of the privileges and disadvantages associated with multiple intersecting identities that shape their experiences [3]. The concept of intersectional oppression [29,30,31,32,33] is applied to various intersectionalities and is linked to unjust privilege [34]. Intersectional privilege [34,35,36] is seen as important to be analyzed [73]. Four types of intersectional solidarity are highlighted: 1. Instrumental intersectionality Short-term Single-issue, 2. Transformative solidarity Long-term Multi-issue Common Denominator (CD), 3. Incorporation Short-term Single-issue, and 4. Pragmatic solidarity Short-term Multi-issue [106]. All the 35 intersectional concepts we identified before the scoping review could be used to analyze the intersectionality of disabled people and flag the intersectional problems disabled people encounter.

1.2. Intersectionality, Intersectionality-Based Concepts, Ability Judgment-Based Concepts, and Disabled People

Disabled people have faced for a long time, and still face, intersectionality-based problems. For example, it is noted:

“In a society where women were denied social and religious equality with men on the basis of their perceived lack of physical, intellectual, and moral ability, early women’s rights activists argued for gender equality by contending that women and men have equal capabilities. Although this argument of equal gender capability became the foundation for the women’s movement, it assumed an ideology of ability present within nineteenth-century health reform movements-an ideology which marginalizes people with disabilities”

[21] (p. 5)

One intersecting factor mentioned in the literature is “abilities” [107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114]. Others use the phrases “ability status” [115,116,117], “dis/ability” [118,119,120,121], “disability” [122,123], ableism [16,124,125,126,127,128,129,130,131,132,133,134,135,136,137,138,139,140,141,142,143,144], and disablism and disablement [125]. There is the phrase “intersectional ableism” [145] and the intersectionality of disabled people with other equity, diversity, and inclusion-covered groups is noted [146]. It is noted that the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) engages with some intersectional identities and that the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities added more intersectionalities of disabled people in their evaluation of the implementation of the CRPD [147]. Intersectionality is linked also to the Americans with Disabilities Act [148]. Various intersectionality realities of parents and their barriers to a lived reality are flagged to pose challenges for parents raising their disabled child [123,149,150].

At the same time, many problems are noted around the academic coverage of the intersectionality of disabled people. One argued that “an analysis of child welfare literature finds that less than half of the articles engage with the intersectionality of child welfare and disability, urging for stronger intersectional methodological approaches” [151] (p. 45). Another flagged problem was the erasure of intersectional identities in policies, which led to the invisibility of disabled people with intersecting identities [152]. Various articles make the case that ableism, disablism, and disabled people have been neglected as one intersectional identity in the intersectional discourse [21,23], including in relation to environmental discourses [153,154]. One article noted that harassment scholarship is one area that ignores disabled people when discussing the intersectional nature of harassment [155].

However, no review has been performed to our knowledge that looked at the academic intersectionality coverage of disabled people. As such, we decided in our scoping review to fill that academic knowledge gap by mapping out how often and which intersectionalities are mentioned in conjunction with disabled people in the academic literature covered.

We identified 35 intersectionality-based concepts used to enrich intersectionality-focused discussions prior to this scoping review. All these 35 intersectionality-based concepts could be used to analyze intersectionality-based problems disabled people experience. Many authors, such as the feminist and disability studies scholar Anita Ghai, in her article called “Disabled Women: An Excluded Agenda of Indian Feminism” [22], highlighted the intersectional invisibility (without using the term) disabled women faced (for another article by Anita Ghai see [156] and others on the topic see [157,158]). Being intersectionally invisible in general impacts negatively on intersectional solidarity and leads to many other intersectionality-based problems for disabled people covered by the 35 intersectionality-based concept.

Over 25 ability judgment-based concepts have been coined within the disability rights movement and the fields of disability studies and ability-based studies to analyze ability-based expectations, judgments, norms, and conflicts (ableism, disablism, internalized ableism, internalized disablism, ability security, ability insecurity, ability equity, ability inequity, ability equality, ability inequality, ability privilege, ability discrimination, ability oppression, ability apartheid, ability obsolescence, ability consumerism, ability commodification, ableism foresight, ability governance, ableism governance, and technology-focused ability judgment terms such as techno-ableism and techno-supercrip) [76,77,78,79,80,81,82,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103]. All these ability judgment-based concepts could be used to analyze the impact of ability judgments on the intersectionality challenges disabled people and others face in general and in relation to specific intersectionality challenges highlighted by the 35 intersectionality-based concepts. Given that ability judgments are one dynamic to marginalize a group or an individual in general, these ability judgment-based concepts could be used to analyze ability judgments in relation to marginalization in general and how ability judgments influence the intersectionality of various marginalized groups including the intersectionality of disabled people.

As part of our scoping review, we analyzed the use of intersectionality-based concepts and ability judgment-based concepts to discuss the intersectionality of disabled people.

1.3. Intersectional Pedagogy

Intersectional pedagogy explores best practices for effective teaching and learning about the intersections of identities [73]. “Intersectional pedagogy (IP) is an educational intervention to help learners develop a social justice consciousness about interlocking systems of oppression that create injustice at the individual, group, and societal levels” [74] (p. 1).

Intersectional pedagogy teaches intersectionality across a wide variety of oppressions; aims to uncover invisible intersections; includes privilege; analyzes power; involves the educator’s personal reflection on intersecting identities, biases, assumptions, and the ways the instructor’s social identity impacts the learning community; encourages student reflection; promotes social action; values the voices of the marginalized and oppressed; and infuses intersectional studies across the curriculum, including a wide variety of disciplines as well as courses not typically associated with diversity content [73].

“Ultimately, an intersectional pedagogy framework invites the instructor and students to move beyond individual lived experiences to deconstructing structural identity politics that create privilege and oppression, thus providing strategies for disrupting systemic inequities”

[159] (p. 7)

Intersectional pedagogy is seen is useful in building ally identities in conjunction with “black LGBTQ+ liberation” [160] (p. 60) and to help “prevent overlooking the invisible impact of what they call the matrix of privilege and oppression. In fact the absence of pedagogies that take intersectionality into account may do harm by further isolating and invalidating students from marginalized backgrounds” [73] (p. 7), citing [161]. Intersectional pedagogy is seen to enhance students’ social literacy [73] and links teaching to social action [162]. It is argued that intersectional pedagogy should include the critical analysis of “structural and systemic inequalities that exist within the cultural, political, social, and economic structure in everyday life (p. 149)” [163] (p. 201), citing [164].

A review [74] “Infusing Intersectional Pedagogy into Adult Education and Human Resource Development Graduate Education” looked at how intersectional pedagogy was implemented in adult and graduate education, outlining the following principles of intersectional pedagogy:

• Raise intersectional consciousness.
• Share positionality and open vulnerability as the instructor.
• Incorporate context and history.
• Challenge the social norms by unpacking power dynamics in society.
• Address both privilege and oppression.
• Deconstruct existing theories and practices.
• Connect to social change [74] (p. 6).

Disabled people and their intersectionalities pose unique challenges to intersectional pedagogy and ability judgment-based concepts are useful for the field of intersectional pedagogy to discuss the intersectionality problems disabled people face. As such, disabled people need to be covered within the intersectional pedagogy literature and ability judgment-based concepts should be used in intersectional pedagogy and we ascertained the coverage of disabled people within the intersectional pedagogy academic literature.

In conclusion, intersectionality is an important social dynamic for marginalized groups, including disabled people. Many intersectionality-based concepts have been coined to enhance intersectional analysis. Intersectional pedagogy emerged as a field to discuss the teaching of intersectionality. Ability judgments influence intersectionality dynamics. Our study aimed to better understand the academic coverage of the intersectionality of disabled people, focusing on (a) the extent of and which intersectionalities were mentioned in conjunction with disabled people, (b) the presence of disabled people within intersectional pedagogy, and (c) the use of intersectionality-based concepts and ability judgment-based concepts to discuss the intersectionality of disabled people.

2. Materials and Methods

Our study used a scoping review to answer RQ1–4 and a survey to answer RQ5. We cover in Part 1 the scoping review details and in Part 2 the survey-related details.

2.1. Theoretical Framework (Scoping Review and Survey)

We interpret our findings of both the survey and the scoping review through the lens of the field of disability studies, which investigates the lived experience of disabled people [165,166], including the disablism, the systemic discrimination disabled people experience [89]. We also interpret our findings through the lens of the field of ability-based studies (three strands: ability expectation and ableism studies [75,76,77], studies in ableism [78,79,80], and critical studies of ableism [81,82]), which focus on the investigation of ability-based expectations, judgments, norms, and conflicts [92]. We make use of some of the 25 ability-based concepts coined within the disability rights movement and the fields of disability and ability studies [77,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102]. Intersectional pedagogy which explores the best practices for effective teaching and learning about the intersections of identity as informed by intersectional theory [74,159,167] is our third lens. We also make use of a variety of intersectionality-based concepts to enrich our analysis.

Part 1 Scoping Review:

2.2. Study Design (Part 1 Scoping Review)

Scoping studies are useful in identifying the extent of research that has been conducted on a given topic and the current understanding of a given topic [168,169]. Our scoping study focuses on the extent of academic research that has been conducted on intersectionality and disabled people including on the use of intersectionality and ability judgment-based concepts in relation to the intersectionality of disabled people and the coverage of disabled people within intersectional pedagogy. Our study employed a modified version of the stages for a scoping review outlined by [170]. We fulfilled all the requirements of the PRISMA chart for scoping reviews [171,172] (added in Appendix D). The only difference is that we did not use a flow chart but showed the data one would give in the flow chart in the table in Section 2.4.

2.3. Identification of Research Questions (Part 1 Scoping Review)

Our study aimed to better understand the coverage of disabled people within the intersectionality-focused academic literature. To fulfill this aim, we answered the following four research questions as part of the scoping review:

(1)

To what extent and which intersectionalities are mentioned in academic abstracts in conjunction with disabled people?

(2)

Which and how are intersectionality-based concepts used in academic abstracts to discuss the intersectionality of disabled people?

(3)

Is intersectional pedagogy used in academic abstracts to discuss the intersectionality of disabled people?

(4)

Which ability judgment-based concepts are used in academic abstracts to discuss the intersectionalities of disabled people?

2.4. Data Sources and Data Collection (Part 1 Scoping Review)

We searched, on 29 January 2024, and 11 June 2024, the academic databases EBSCO-HOST (an umbrella database that includes over 70 other databases itself), Scopus, and Web of Science with no time restrictions. These databases were chosen because together they contain journals that cover a wide range of topics from areas relevant to answering the research questions including journals focusing on intersectionality, disability studies, ethnic studies, women’s studies, and education.

As to the inclusion criteria, scholarly peer-reviewed journals were included in the EBSCO-HOST search and reviews; peer-reviewed articles, conference papers, and editorials in Scopus; and the Web of Science search was set to all document types. As to the exclusion criteria, every data found through the search strategies (

Table 1. Search strategies used.

Strategy	Sources	Search Terms	Hits (Yellow Were Downloaded)
Strategy 1	Scopus/EBSCO-HOST/Web of Science	ABS “intersectionalit*” and ABS (“disabled” OR “disabilit*” OR “impair*” OR “deaf” OR “neurodiv*” OR “dyslexia” OR “ADHD” OR “autism” OR “ASD” OR “attention deficit” OR “autistic” OR “wheelchair*”)	588/758/385 = 1731 − dup = 753 (downloaded)
Strategy 2	Scopus/EBSCO-HOST/Web of Science	ABS “Intersection of” AND ABS disability terms from strategy 1	1345/2053/733 = 4137 − dup = 2058 (downloaded)
Strategy 3	Scopus/EBSCO-HOST/Web of Science	ABS disability terms from strategy 1 AND ABS (“intersectional conflict*” OR “Intersectional experience*” OR “Intersectional self” OR “Intersectional hostilit*” OR “intersectional struggle*” OR “intersectional adjustment*” OR “intersectional solidarit*” OR “Intersectional consciousness” OR “intersectional oppression” OR “intersectional privilege*” OR “Intersectional invisibilit*” OR “intersecting identit*” OR “Intersectional identit*” OR “intersectional disempowerment*” OR “intersectional empowerment*” OR “intersectional effect*” OR “intersectional matrix” OR “intersectional fairness” OR “intersectional bias” OR “intersectional microaggression*” OR “intersectional minority stressor*” OR “intersectional identity stressor*” OR “intersectional stigma” OR “Intersectional discrimination*” OR “Intersectional Discrimination Index” OR “intersectional activis*” OR “intersectional inequit*” OR “intersectional inequalit*” OR “intersectional equit*” OR “intersectional equalit*” OR “intersectional justice” OR “intersectionality justice” OR “intersectional self-advocac*” OR “intersectional advocac*” OR “Intersectional Pedagog*”)	221/185/156 = 562 − dup = 274
Strategy 4a	Scopus/EBSCO-HOST/Web of Science	Abstract search disability terms from strategy 1 OR the terms (ableist OR ableism OR disableism OR disablism OR disableist OR disablist AND ABS “intersection* Pedagog*”	0
Strategy 4b	Scopus/EBSCO-HOST/Web of Science	Abstract search disability terms from strategy 1 OR the terms (ableist OR ableism OR disableism OR disablism OR disableist OR disablist AND full text “intersection* Pedagog*”	13/8/0 (not downloaded)
Strategy 4c	Scopus/EBSCO-HOST/Web of Science	Full-text search disability terms from strategy 1 OR the terms (ableist OR ableism OR disableism OR disablism OR disableist OR disablist AND ABS “intersection* Pedagog*”	3/5/0 (not downloaded)
Strategy 4d	Scopus/EBSCO-HOST/Web of Science	Full-text search disability terms from strategy 1 OR the terms (ableist OR ableism OR disableism OR disablism OR disableist OR disablist AND “intersection* Pedagog*”	51/64/0 = 109 after duplicate 84; 70 full text available for download
Strategy 5	Scopus/EBSCO-HOST/Web of Science	ABS (Intersectionality)	8018/21,451/5361 = 34,830 (duplicates possible) not downloaded; used for online hit count analysis (see the first table in the Result Section)
Strategy 6	Scopus/EBSCO-HOST/Web of Science	“Intersection of”	70,863/151,214/37,424 = 259,501 (duplicates possible) not downloaded and not used for analysis
Strategy 7	Scopus/EBSCO-HOST/Web of Science	ABS Intersectionality-based concepts from strategy 3	2778/6835/2040 = 11,653 (duplicates possible) not downloaded and not used for analysis

) not covering the content mentioned under the inclusion criteria was excluded from the content analysis.

2.5. Data Analysis (Part 1 Scoping Review)

To obtain abstracts for the desktop manifest coding and the qualitative content analysis, we downloaded the different sets of abstracts obtained with our search strategies using the citation export function of the databases we searched and the import function of the Endnote 9 software. As for the initial set of abstracts downloaded, we used the Endnote 9 software to eliminate duplicates due to the abstracts being present in more than one database. The final number of abstracts for each search strategy was exported as one WORD Office file from the Endnote 9 software and transformed into one PDF file.

For the manifest coding used to answer RQ1–4, both authors used the three PDFs reflecting search strategy 1–3. These three PDFs were searched by both authors of this study independently for preset keywords using the advanced search function in the Adobe Acrobat Software version 2024 to ascertain how often a given term showed up in the three sets of abstracts. The two authors then compared the hit numbers obtained for each keyword (peer debriefing). No differences were found between the authors.

A copy-and-paste approach of relevant phrases was used to generate a list of phrases of intersecting identities that include disability, and ability-related terms and topics listed as part of the phrases containing intersecting identities linked to disabled people to answer another aspect of RQ1. Both authors read the abstracts (one PDF for the 753 (strategy 1) and one PDF for the 2058 (strategy 2)), which were used as the sources. Peer debriefing was used to compare the copied and pasted phrases added into

Table A1. Presence of intersectionality of ableism mentioned with other isms.

Terms	The Term “Intersectionality” and the Disability Terms; 753 Abstracts	The Phrase “Intersection of” and the Disability Terms; 2058 Abstracts
Intersectionality between isms and ableism
structural racism, ableism	x
2. ableism and structural racism	x	x
3. ableism and the intersectionality of culture, affect, language, race and ethnicity	x
4. ableism, racism, sexism, and the like	x
5. ableism and racism in employment	x	x
6. workplace ableism and racism	x	x
7. racism, sexism, and ableism	x	x
8. racism and ableism	x	x
9. Ableism and racism	x	x
10. ableism and racism can manifest in schools	x	x
11. racism, ableism, historical injustices, and resource allocation	x
12. language, ableism, compulsory able-bodiedness, cripping and normativity	x
13. societal structures including ableism, patriarchy, and social class	x
14. intersectionality theory with ableism and feminist disability theory serves as its foundation	x
15. linking ableism with intersectionality	x
16. supremacy, classism and ableism	x
17. racism and ableism on Black students	x
18. racism and ableism in special education	x
19. racism and ableism in education		x
20. racism and ableism allows us to reconfigure our analysis of violence		x
21. racism and ableism in health care		x
22. ableism and racism in broader society		x
23. speciesism sustains ableism	x
24. disability geographies: ableism, speciesism, care, space, and place		x
25. speciesism and ableism		x
26. ableism and speciesism		x
27. ableism within animal studies, ii) speciesism within disability studies		x
28. stigma, racism, and ableism as well as reflect on current anti-Asian violence		x
29. Ableism differs by disability, gender and social context		x
30. ableism and the neoliberal university’s focus on productivity		x
31. White supremacy, ableism, and sexism		x
32. white supremacy and ableism		x
33. marginalizations such as ableism, racism, classism, and linguicism		x
34. sexism and ableism earn less income, and work in exceptionally challenging conditions		x
35. recognise constructs of ableism and the intersectionality of culture, affect, language, race and ethnicity		x
36. intersections of ableism, racism, economic power and sexism		x
37. Oppressions: Racism, Sizeism, Ableism, and the “Illimitable Etceteras		x
38. fat hatred/ageism/ableism/healthism		x
39. patriarchy, sexual violence, ableism and queer-antagonism		x
40. disability geographies: ableism, speciesism, care, space, and place		x
41. Academic neoliberal ableism		x
42. anti-Blackness and ableism		x
43. Black racism and ableism		x
44. ableism and anti-Black racism		x
45. ableism, racism, and colonialism		x
46. Neodisableism		x
47. Ageism and Ableism		x
48. internalized ageism, relational ableism, fear of physical disability, fear of sensory disability,		x
49. Violent Internalized Ableism in Online Incel Communities		x
50. racism, ableism and disablism		x
51. relationships between speciesism, ableism, saneism, and racism in animal agriculture, culture, built environments,		x
52. ableism and linguicism		x
53. Ableism, sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, etc.		x
54. race, ableism, and documentation		x
55. colonialism, racism, ableism and sexism		x
56. racism, ableism and sexism		x
57. urbanormativity, ableism, and sexism		x
58. ableism and gender inequality		x
59. ableism, compulsory able-bodiedness, and heteronormativity within sexuality education		x
60. ableism, racism, economic power and sexism		x
61. racism, sexism, ableism, due to most technologies being developed by those in power		x

,

Table A2. Presence of phrases that reflect intersecting identities of disabled people with other identities, so using a term linked to a disabled person, not the term “disability”, in the 753 and 2058 abstracts.

Terms	The Term “Intersectionality” and the Disability Terms; 753 Abstracts	The Phrase “Intersection of” and the Disability Terms; 2058 Abstracts
Phrases that reflect intersecting identities of a disabled person with another identity: Autism-linked
autistic and non-autistic adults within strata of race/ethnicity	x
2. Among the autistic group, Black, Hispanic, and Asian adults	x
3. Autistic AA/B	x
4. autistic adults of color	x
5. autistic African American/Black adults	x
6. autistic and Black	x
7. Autistic Black girls	x
8. autistic cisgender	x
9. Autistic females	x
10. Autistic LGBTQIA plus Identity	x
11. autistic patients who experience gender dysphoria	x
12. autistic people of color	x
13. autistic people who identify as transgender and gender-expansive (TGE)	x
14. autistic transgender adults	x
15. autistic women	x
16. autistic, gender-diverse children and young people	x	x
17. autistic, queer, social work student	x
18. being autistic, Black, or poor, because these identities combine to make discrimination	x
19. Bilingual autistic adults	x
20. Black and autistic	x
21. Black and autistic scholars	x
22. Black and Hispanic autistic adults	x
23. Black autistic adults are largely absent from the literature	x
24. Black autistic men	x
25. Black autistic men and police officers	x	x
26. Black autistic transition-age youth	x
27. Black Autistic Women and Girls	x
28. Black-British autistic adolescent who experienced domestic violence.	x
29. cisgender autistic males	x	x
30. color (BIPOC) autistic communities	x
31. gendered autistic identities	x
32. neurodiverse-affirming autistic identities	x
33. person’s autistic and racial/ethnic identities	x
34. self-identified autistic incels	x
35. transgender/gender-expansive autistic people	x
36. violence among autistic people of varying gender identities	x	x
Phrases that reflect intersecting identities of a disabled person with another identity: Deaf-linked
Deafness and ethnicity	x
2. adolescents’ deaf, race, and STEM identities	x	x
3. Black deaf	x
4. Black deaf African migrants	x
5. Black Deaf and Hard of Hearing Women in the United States	x
6. Black deaf community	x
7. Black Deaf feminism	x
8. Black deaf women	x	x
9. blackness, gender, and deafness	x	x
10. blind and deaf participants	x
11. deaf African American female	x
12. deaf and latinx cultures	x
13. deaf Bedouin women and men	x
14. deaf blackness	x
15. deaf gay British men	x
16. Deaf Gay Men	x	x
17. deaf migrants experience discrimination and racism from deaf and hearing people alike	x
18. deaf migration	x
19. Deaf Refugees	x	x
20. Deaf transgender	x
21. deaf women	x	x
22. deaf, Black, and trans	x
23. deafness and social class	x
24. Maori Deaf	x
25. Pakeha Deaf	x
26. Pakeha Deaf wife of a Maori Deaf man	x
27. Queer, Deaf, African Identities	x
28. Queer, Deaf, and Black African	x
29. race, gender, and deafness	x
30. refugee, d/Deaf, and neurodivergent students	x
31. subjectivities of deaf blacks	x
32. Theory of Black Deaf Feminism	x	x
33. trans and deaf people	x	x
34. White deaf individuals	x
Phrases that reflect intersecting identities of a disabled person with another identity: Disability-linked
Asian Americans with disabilities	x
2. Austrian girls with disabilities as well as of refugee girls with and without disabilities	x
3. bisexual youth with disabilities	x
4. Black feminist disability framework	x
5. black people with disabilities
6. Black with a disability	x
7. Black with a disability	x
8. black women with disabilities	x
9. Black youth with disabilities	x
10. boys with disabilities	x
11. Dalit women with disabilities	x
12. Decolonizing Indigenous disability in Australia	x
13. girls with disabilities	x
14. interrelationship among HIV, disability, gender and time among PWD living with HIV	x
15. intersectionality of gender, disability, and other identities for women’s career development.	x
16. LGBT+ people with disabilities	x
17. LGBTIQ people with disabilities	x
18. LGBTIQ individuals with disabilities	x
19. men with disabilities	x
20. men with physical disabilities	x
21. minority youth with disabilities	x
22. people with communication disability, who are refugee-survivors of sexual and gender-based violence	x
23. people with learning disabilities who identify as LGBT	x
24. poor women with disabilities	x
25. racialized people with disabilities	x
26. rural children with disabilities	x
27. rural women with disabilities	x
28. Sami people with disabilities	x
29. Tamil women with disabilities	x
30. woman with intellectual disabilities	x
31. Women Athletes with Disabilities	x
32. women with disabilities	x
33. Women with intellectual disabilities	x
Phrases that reflect intersecting identities of a disabled person with another identity: Disabled-linked
Black disabled individuals	x
2. disabled Blacks	x
3. disabled boys	x
4. disabled girls	x	x
5. Disabled Girls of Color	x
6. disabled girls of color	x
7. disabled Indigenous child	x
8. disabled Latinas	x
9. disabled LGBT+ young people	x
10. disabled masculinity	x
11. disabled men	x
12. disabled people of color	x
13. disabled people of color	x
14. disabled Sami citizens	x
15. disabled women	x
16. disabled youth of color	x
17. Indigenous disabled people	x
18. queer disabled people	x
19. white, male, disabled, a sports champion and a convicted murderer—Pistorius presents	x
20. young disabled LGBT plus people	x

,

Table A3. Phrases using the terms “Disabilit*” or “disabled” in intersection with other identities but not as a phrase linked to a person in the 753 abstracts.

Phrases Using the Terms “Disabilit*” in Intersection with Other Identities but Not as a Phrase Linked to a Person
“race”, “disability”, “sexual orientation”, “religion” and “intersectionality
2. color with disabilities
3. disability and SOGI
4. race and disability
5. race, gender, or disability
6. ethnicity, gender, and disability status
7. intellectual disabilities and chronic illness
8. ethnicity, sexuality, disability and obesity
9. age, gender, disability, sexuality, and migrant status
10. caste, religion, region, disability, age, sexual orientation, etc.
11. disability intersect with race, gender/sex, and social class
12. gender, race, disability, sexual orientation, religious belief and age
13. race, gender and disability
14. race and disability
15. religion or belief, disability, age, and sexual orientation
16. race, sexuality, class, disabilities, and more
17. sexual orientation, disability, race, and gender
18. blackness and disability
19. class, gender, and disability
20. gender, ethnicity and disability
21. illness, migrant minority, disability, linguistic minority, sexual orientation, income, political ideology, gender, age
22. sexual orientation, religion, disability, weight, and age
23. migration, racism, sexism, disability, and class
24. occupation, educational background, disability, social position, religion, age, economic status, and ethnicity
25. immigrants, people with disabilities, and other historically marginalized groups
26. elderly, people with disabilities, homeless people, one-parent households, unemployed people, Gypsytravellers
27. disability and citizenship
28. Indigeneity and disability
29. Gender, and Invisible Disability
30. invisible disabilities and race
31. sexuality and intellectual disabilities
32. disability, gender, race and poverty
33. gender, disability, marital status, occupational status, and socioeconomic status
34. gender, disability, sexuality, race, ethnicity, and nationality
35. gender, disability, and refugee status
36. disability categories, gender identifications, age groups, and countries on language preferences
37. ethnicity/race, religion, disability, pregnancy/maternity, intersectionality of diversity characteristics and inclusion
38. Gender, Disability and Queerness
39. migratory status and disability
40. Disability and masculinities
41. age, gender, class, disability or citizenship-intersect
42. disability and SOGIESC
43. disability with other dimensions of vulnerability
44. disability is shaped by race, gender expression and class among others
45. gender and disability
46. disability, refugee status and gender
47. disability, gender and violence
48. racialization of disabilities
49. physical and visual disabilities
50. gender, disability, and sexual minority identities
51. color with disabilities
52. triple disadvantages: Disability, chronic poverty and gender inequality
53. gender, disability, and generation (life stage) identities
54. disability and its location within the University
55. race, gender, disability and sexuality
56. disability and poverty
57. Disability and Overweightness
58. “Disability, Caste, and Intersectionality Co-Existence of Disability and Caste
59. childhood disability and rurality
60. culture, gender, disability, and socioeconomic disadvantage
61. age, gender, disability, sexuality, and migrant status
62. class, immigration status, disability, age, poverty
63. Disability, Sexuality, and Gender in Asia
64. gender, gender identity, disability, sexuality, geography, and family structure
65. disability, gender and sports
66. socioeconomic status, gender, disability, age, culture and ethnicity, and footwear quality
67. Indigenous personhood, disability, age, religion, language, region, and parental status
68. Religion, Disability, and Interpersonal Violence
69. links between disability and domestic violence
70. SGBV with communication disability, in Rwanda
71. disability and nutrition
72. disability, age, ethnicity, sexuality and violence
73. disability, masculinities, and violence
74. disability, age, gender, race/ethnicity, marital status, health insurance
75. disability and cultural/linguistic diversity
76. disability and its location within the University
77. disability, race, and economic disadvantage
Phrases using the terms “Disabled” in intersection with other identities but not as a phrase linked to a person
non-normative, queer, disabled and gendered embodiment
2. age, sexuality and disabled status
3. being disabled, Asians and females aged 35–44 years, males by age
4. female and disabled
5. Young, disabled and LGBT+ identities
6. heterosexual, not male, disabled, poor, not sane, and/or Indigenous
7. immigrant minorities”, “disabled, less-educated non-workers”, and “low-income minorities” groups

,

Table A4. Phrases using the term “disabilit*” in intersection with not only an identity but also a topic/lived reality in the 753 abstracts.

Phrases Using the Term “Disabilit*” in Intersection with Not Only an Identity but also a Topic/Lived Reality in the 753 Abstracts
race, gender, and disability in genetic technologies
2. Disability, Sexuality, and Gender in Asia
3. sexuality, religion, and disabilities in online environments
4. gender, disability status, sexuality and family circumstances of the victim
5. race/ethnicity and disability on experiences of food allergy
6. sexual orientation, disability, and socioeconomic status in women’s help-seeking decisions
7. Religion, Disability, and Interpersonal Violence
8. links between disability and domestic violence
9. racism, gender, sexuality, disability and accessibility, and class in Library and Information Studies
10. SGBV with communication disability, in Rwanda
11. intersectionality of disability and race, and the diversity in primary school
12. intersectionality between disability and nutrition
13. disability-related stigma in LGBTQ+ spaces
14. Disability, Race & Language Intersections in Special Education
15. Intersectionality of disability and cultural/linguistic diversity in the UK
16. intersectionality of disability and its location within the University

,

Table A5. Phrases containing “Intersection of” AND disability terms and intersection with another identity in the 2058 abstracts.

Phrases Containing “Intersection of” and Disability Terms and Intersection with Another Identity in the 2058 Abstracts
the intersection of disability’s depiction with that of gender
2. intersection of gender with various social class, age, and disability.
3. intersection of disability and race
4. intersection of disability and diversity
5. intersection of disability with other identities such as gender and ethnicity.
6. intersection of disability with race and other identity markers
7. intersection of disability and race
8. intersection of disability, [homo]sexuality, and gender identity/expression
9. intersection of race, ethnicity, culture, and language with significant cognitive disabilities
10. intersection of race, gender and disability
11. intersection of disability and racial markedness
12. gender, sexuality and disability
13. intersection of disability, race, sexual orientation, and gender identities
14. Intersection of Learning Disability Status, Race, and Socioeconomic Status”.
15. disability is constructed by the intersection of impairment and contextual factors
16. intersection of disability and other marginalized identities
17. intersection of disability and gender
18. intersection of gender and disability
19. Intersection of asexuality and disability
20. intersection of invisible disabilities and other social identities.
21. intersection of youth, disability and gender
22. intersection of disability and race
23. intersection of race and disability.
24. intersection of disability and minority status
25. intersection of disability and race.
26. intersection of disability and HIV
27. intersection of students’ disability status with their race
28. intersection of disability and race.
29. intersection of disability and sexual orientation.
30. intersection of disability and minoritized race or ethnicity
31. intersection of disability, race, and ethnicity.
32. intersection of race and dis/ability for Black men
33. intersection of queerness and emotional disability
34. intersection of disability with age, gender, and ethnicity
35. Intersection of Gender and Disability
36. Intersection of disability and gender
37. disability and social status
38. intersection of disability and linguistic diversity
39. Intersection of Math and Reading Disabilities
40. intersection of disability and gender
41. intersection of disability and race
42. intersection of disability and LGBTQ+ identity
43. intersection of disability and other minoritized demographics
44. intersection of female, severe disability, and mental/developmental disabilities
45. Intersection of Language, Culture, and Disability
46. intersection of gender and disability
47. intersection of gender and disability
48. intersection of policies on children, Indigenous peoples and people with disabilities.
49. intersection of the 2SLGBTQ+ and disability community.
50. intersection of poverty, disability, caste, religious discrimination and gender
51. intersection of Traveller ethnicity, gender, disability and age.
52. intersection of race and disability,
53. intersection of giftedness, disability, and cultural identities,
54. Intersection of Race, Disability, and Giftedness:
55. intersection of disability and SF
56. intersection of femme, aging, and later-in-life disability
57. intersection of aging and disability
58. intersection of disability and marginalized gender identity,
59. intersection of aging and disability.
60. intersection of race, class, and disability
61. intersection of race and disability
62. intersection of gender, dis/ability and other social forces
63. intersection of gender and disability
64. intersection of lesbianism and disability
65. intersection of disability, gender and culture
66. intersection of cultures of disability, sexuality, gender, race, and class,
67. intersection of gender, race and disability
68. intersection of gender, HIV, and disability
69. intersection of disability and other marginalized identities or statuses.
70. intersection of form with issues of race and disability
71. intersection of disability and gender,
72. intersection of bilingualism and disability.
73. intersection of aging, disability, and sexuality
74. intersection of disability and aging
75. intersection of disability with race, class, and gender.
76. intersection of race, gender, and disability
77. intersection of race, gender and disability
78. intersection of the 2SLGBTQ+ and disability community
79. Intersection of Learning Disability Status, Race, and Socioeconomic Status”.
80. intersection of adolescents’ learning disability status, race, and socioeconomic status
81. intersection of gender and disability
82. intersection of disability and race
83. intersection of gender and disability,
84. intersection of class, race, gender, ability/disability.
85. intersection of disability and sexual orientation.
86. intersection of race, socioeconomic class, and disability
87. intersection of race and disability.
88. intersection of sexuality, gender identity, and disability
89. intersection of age, ethnicity, and disability
90. intersection of illness, gender, ethnicity, HIV-stigma and discrimination influenced disability
91. intersection of identities: disability, sexual orientation and gender identity.
92. intersection of gender, race and disability
93. intersection of disability and LGBTQ+ identity,
94. intersection of embodiment with language, aesthetics, economics, gender, race, disability, sexuality
95. intersection of race/ethnicity and disability
96. intersection of HIV, disability and gender
97. intersection of queerness and disability
98. intersection of disability and gender
99. intersection of gender and disability
100. intersection of gender and disability
101. intersection of race, ethnicity and disability among racial and ethnic minority
102. intersection of gender and disability
103. intersection of race, disability and sometimes immigration status, racially/ethnically diverse
104. intersection of race, gender, disability, and language.
105. intersection of ability/disability with race, class, culture, and language

and

Table A6. Phrases containing “Intersection of” AND disability terms and intersection with not only an identity but also a lived reality in the 2058 abstracts.

“Intersection of” Used to Link Intersecting Identities to an Intersecting Topic
intersection of gender, disability, and motherhood
2. intersection of ‘crip theory’—related to disability and queer
3. intersection of disability and gender in disability-inclusive disaster risk reduction
4. intersection of disability and other marginalized identities has been neglected in psychology
5. intersection of disability and sexual orientation on women’s post-intimate partner violence
6. intersection of disability status and rurality in American Indian/Alaskan Native
7. intersection of art therapy, artists labeled/with IDD and disability art.
8. intersection of disability type and refugee status
9. intersection of disability type and refugee status affects the general public’s attitudes
10. intersection of disability with race and ethnicity in health care
11. intersection of disability, age, and racial equity
12. intersection of disability, employment, and race
13. intersection of disability, feminism, and RT/TR”.
14. intersection of disability, gender and social environment shapes vulnerability to HIV.
15. intersection of disability, gender, and athleticism
16. intersection of disability, gender, and culture
17. intersection of disability, gender, and religious identity
18. intersection of disability, gender, and war studies.
19. intersection of disability, gender, poverty, cultural beliefs and practices
20. intersection of disability, masculinity and intimate partner violence
21. intersection of disability, society and design in the Indian context.
22. Intersection of Disproportionality in Race, Disability, and Juvenile Justice”.
23. intersection of diversity, disability, and inclusive schooling.
24. intersection of diversity, severe disability, and family
25. intersection of gender and disability in the experiences of the activists,
26. intersection of gender and disability in the medical arena
27. intersection of gender and disability within entrepreneurship research
28. intersection of gender, disability and place of residence
29. intersection of gender, disability and rurality
30. intersection of gender, literacy, and disability.
31. intersection of gender, literacy, and disability.
32. intersection of human rights, health, disability and refugee status:
33. intersection of learning difficulties, class, gender and religion
34. intersection of lifelong disability, gender, and culture
35. Intersection of Pain, Disability, and Depressive Symptoms”.
36. intersection of race and culture with religion and disability
37. Intersection of Race, Disability and Accessibility.
38. intersection of race, disability, and performance
39. intersection of race, disability, and poverty.
40. intersection of race, disability, and technology.
41. intersection of race, gender, and disability in genetic technologies
42. intersection of trans, disability, peace, and anti-racist movements for social justice.
43. intersection of violence against women with disabilities,
44. intersections of disability, race, and STEM
“Intersection of” used to link disability to an intersecting topic but no other intersecting marginalized identity
intersection of art, youth and disability culture
2. intersection of AT, disability, and sport
3. intersection of behavioral genetics, ‘new’ eugenics and disability
4. intersection of bullying and students with disabilities
5. intersection of career-focused experiential education and disability service
6. intersection of Childhood Disability and Migration in Family Lives”.
7. intersection of CTE programs and disability
8. intersection of culture and disability in the context of the AT
9. intersection of culture, disability and assistive technology”.
10. intersection of disabilities and sexualities
11. intersection of disabilities and sexualities
12. intersection of disability activism and online activism
13. intersection of disability and accounting employment.
14. intersection of disability and art
15. intersection of Disability and Child Abuse
16. intersection of disability and Christian worship.
17. intersection of disability and Displacement:
18. intersection of disability and domestic violence
19. intersection of Disability and Drama:
20. intersection of disability and emotions
21. intersection of disability and end-of-life care,
22. intersection of disability and environmental damage.
23. intersection of disability and HIV risk
24. intersection of disability and homelessness for youth
25. intersection of disability and homelessness, particularly intellectual, developmental, and learning disabilities
26. intersection of disability and immigration
27. intersection of disability and immigration.
28. intersection of disability and juvenile justice
29. intersection of disability and land use law.
30. intersection of disability and media,
31. intersection of disability and migration
32. intersection of disability and migratory status
33. intersection of disability and ministry
34. intersection of disability and online access
35. intersection of disability and participation in BDSM.
36. intersection of disability and pregnancy
37. intersection of disability and public health:
38. intersection of disability and sexuality
39. intersection of disability and sexuality in healthcare.
40. intersection of disability and sexuality.
41. intersection of disability and Star Trek.
42. intersection of disability and substance use disorders (SUD).
43. intersection of disability and technology
44. intersection of disability and theology
45. intersection of disability and trauma
46. intersection of disability and violence
47. intersection of disability rights and genetic counseling.
48. intersection of disability studies, religion, and theology.
49. intersection of disability, care and family law.
50. intersection of disability, citizenship, and migration.
51. intersection of disability, displacement, and social work.
52. intersection of disability, immigration and social work”.
53. intersection of disability, mobility, and territory
54. intersection of disability, sexuality and romantic relationships.
55. intersection of dress and disability
56. intersection of education for deaf Americans and Protestant missionary efforts
57. intersection of human rights and disability and the education-related
58. intersection of human-computer interaction and disability rights law
59. intersection of intellectual disability and the psychological coping mechanism of
60. Intersection of Intellectual/Developmental Disability and Homelessness
61. intersection of language and disability
62. intersection of language, disability, and educational opportunity”.
63. intersection of liberal politics and depictions of disability in movies
64. intersection of media, disability and cultural studies
65. intersection of migration and disability
66. intersection of migratory status and disability
67. intersection of motherhood, time and disability
68. Intersection of Online Learning and Disability
69. intersection of pain/disability and family resources.
70. intersection of popular music and disability.
71. intersection of poverty and disability
72. intersection of poverty, disability, and employment
73. intersection of poverty, HIV, and disability
74. intersection of regimes of disability, sexuality, and neoliberalism.
75. intersection of regimes of disability, sexuality, and neoliberalism.
76. intersection of religion and disability
77. intersection of rhetoric and disability
78. intersection of service-connected disability and mental health care utilization
79. intersection of sexualities and disabilities in educational contexts.
80. intersection of sexuality, disability, and sex education.
81. intersection of sport, disability, and motherhood
82. intersection of sports and disability
83. intersection of stigma, HIV, and disability
84. intersection of the freak show, disability, and child welfare
85. intersection of theology and disability
86. intersection of theology and intellectual disability.
87. intersection of travel decisions, disability and country
88. intersection of users with disabilities and new technologies,
89. intersection of war injury and disability
90. intersection of work and disability
91. intersection of work and disability
“Intersection of” including Disability Studies
intersection of critical race theory and materialist disability studies,
2. intersection of communication, Paralympics, and disability studies.
3. intersection of critical cultural disability studies and rhetorical studies
4. intersection of critical cultural policy studies and critical disability studies
5. intersection of critical disability studies, crip theory and youth studies
6. intersection of critical disability studies, cultural studies and sport,
7. intersection of critical time studies and disability studies.
8. intersection of disability and media studies
9. intersection of disability studies and architecture
10. intersection of disability studies and childhood studies.
11. intersection of disability studies and composition studies,
12. intersection of disability studies and disability theology
13. intersection of disability studies and entrepreneurship
14. intersection of disability studies and fanfiction studies
15. intersection of Disability Studies and Performance Studies,
16. intersection of disability studies and philosophical ethics,
17. intersection of disability studies and trauma theory.
18. intersection of disability studies, medical intervention, sideshow history and animality
19. intersection of education and Indigenous studies, critical disability studies, climate
20. intersection of freak studies, a sub-discipline of disability studies,
21. intersection of illness and disability with Disability Studies.
22. intersection of online dating and disability studies.
23. intersection of Queer Theory, disability studies, and Crip Theory,
“Intersection of” different fields/theories including disability
intersection of disability theory and queer theory
2. intersection of environmental humanities and disability justice
3. intersection of philosophy of disability and critical philosophy of race,
4. intersection of the feminist and disability rights perspectives;

, Appendix A, by both authors and to resolve the few instances where authors differed.

We also used an abstract count online database search of the 34,830 abstracts (strategy 5) for various disability terms and other keywords.

For the thematic analysis of the intersectional concepts present in the PDF containing the 274 abstracts (strategy 3), to answer RQ 2, both authors independently first read the abstracts and discarded the ones that did not cover the intersectionality concepts in relation to disabled people. Both authors of the study used the comment function in Adobe Acrobat Software for the coding procedures. The relevant abstracts were coded first for the different intersectionality concepts. Then, what was said in relation to disabled people within the different intersectionality concepts was coded. Throughout the coding, the two authors compared their results. The few differences between the authors were resolved through peer debriefing.

To answer RQ3, we performed a manifest coding for “intersection* pedagog*” in the documents from strategies 1–3 and online searches of “intersection* pedagog*” and the disability terms (strategies 4a–c). For the content analysis of the full text of articles covering intersectional pedagogy and the disability terms (strategy 4d), both authors read the relevant sections in the 70 articles (had to mention the disability terms used, ableism or disablism, in conjunction with performing intersectional pedagogy). Relevant content which means content that engaged in depth with how to engage in intersectional pedagogy with disabled people was reported. During peer debriefing, the authors compared their findings. No differences were found.

2.6. Trustworthiness Measures (Part 1 Scoping Review)

Trustworthiness measures include confirmability, credibility, dependability, and transferability [173,174,175]. Peer debriefing was also employed. As for transferability, we give all the details needed so others can decide whether they want to apply our search approaches to other data sources or whether they want to use other search terms or other disability terms, and whether they want to perform a more in-depth analysis of the terms based on the hit counts.

2.7. Limitations (Part 1 Scoping Review)

The search was limited to specific academic databases, English language literature, and abstracts. As such, the findings are not to be generalized to the whole academic literature, non-academic literature, or non-English literature. We also did not use every possible disability term. Also, the results in Table A1, Table A2, Table A3, Table A4, Table A5 and Table A6, Appendix A, are copied and pasted phrases fitting the research questions. Just because the phrases link disability terms to other marginalized identities as part of the phrase does not mean that a given abstract or article engages in detail with disabled people with their intersectional identity. We did not judge whether an abstract engaged in depth with the intersectionality of disabled people but only copied and pasted the phrases. Furthermore, there might be other lived experiences mentioned that were not part of the phrases covering disability terms as part of the intersectionality phrases (Table A4 and Table A6, Appendix A). However, our findings allow conclusions to be made within the parameters of the searches.

Part 2 Surveys:

2.8. Study Design and Research Questions (Part 2 Surveys)

Our study aimed to better understand the coverage of disabled people within the intersectionality-focused academic literature. To fulfill this aim, we report in this study also on the views of one first-year, undergraduate disability studies class at one Canadian University on the view of students on the impact of various ability judgment-based issues experienced by different social entities to answer RQ 5: what are the views of undergraduate students on people from various social groups experiencing negative ability-based judgments as depicted by the different ability judgment-based concepts?

The following survey questions were used (survey numbers reflect the number in the survey):

Q4—Do …experience active disablism or omission/passive disablism? Q7—Ability Security means that one is able to live a decent life with whatever set of abilities one has, and that one will not be forced to have a prescribed set of abilities to live a secure life. Ability Insecurity is the problem of experiencing ability security. Do you think ……experience Ability InSecurity? Q8—Ability identity security is the security to be at able to be at ease with one’s abilities. One experiences ability identity insecurity if one cannot be at ease with one’s abilities. Do you think ……experience Ability Identity Insecurity? Q9—Ability identity abuse is that others negate ability identity security, the ability that one is at ease with one’s abilities, which includes that one can build an identity around ones set of abilities. Do you think ……experience Ability identity abuse? Q10—Ability discrimination means that one is oppressed because one’s abilities are different. Do you think ……experience Ability discrimination? Q11—Ability privilege describes the advantages enjoyed by those who exhibit certain abilities and the unwillingness of these individuals to relinquish the advantage linked to the abilities, especially with the reason that these are earned, or birth-given (natural) abilities. Do you think ……experience problems because of the Ability privilege exhibited by others? Q12—Ability inequity is a normative term denoting an unjust or unfair distribution of access to and protection from abilities generated through human interventions. Do you think ……experience Ability inequity? Q13—Ability inequity is a normative term denoting an unjust or unfair judgment of abilities intrinsic to biological structures such as the human body. Do you think ……experience Ability inequity?

For all of the questions, the students were given the following groups (themselves, Post-secondary students, Non-University apprenticeship students, Blue collar workers, Men, Women, People with low income, People with high income, Countries of the North, Countries of the South, Disabled people, Nonbinary people, Immigrants to Canada, Immigrants to other countries, Indigenous people in Canada, People of ethnic background not a majority in Canada, Youth, The Elderly, Single parents, Family caregiver, Animals, and Nature).

2.9. Participants for Surveys (Part 2 Surveys)

The survey questions were given to 75 students as one of their course assignments using the university-based Qualtrics platform. The survey questions used to answer RQ5 were part of the week 9 topic: Abuse and Violence of the course given in the fall of 2021. The students were required to submit their responses before the lecture took place. As such, the survey answers reflect the views of the students before they had access to the lecture covering the topic. A report (no names attached to the answers) of the survey answers was generated in Qualtrics and the answers were used as part of the lecture to stimulate discussions on the topic in the class. The study received ethics approval by the Conjoint Health Research Ethics Board of the University of Calgary Approval number REB17-0785.

In compliance with the ethics approval, the students were asked at the end of the course after the final marks were submitted whether the data could be used (without identifying any student) for an academic study.

Disability studies students were chosen for this study because students in general are seen as change agents [176,177,178,179,180,181,182,183] and disability studies students are concerned about the negative lived realities of disabled people and ability judgments impacting disabled people.

2.10. Data Analysis (Part 2 Surveys)

Frequency counts and percentage measures data were extracted and analyzed using Qualtrics’ intrinsic frequency distribution analysis capability.

2.11. Limitation (Part 2 Surveys)

As to limitation, an online survey instrument was used, and as such, the students could not ask for clarifications. The survey also did not contain questions that asked for qualitative content to investigate in-depth the views of the participants. Demographic questions were also not asked because this was a standard graded assignment designed to encourage student engagement with the course topic. To provide answers based on the demographics of the students would have prevented a “we” feeling of the group and divided the group by demographics. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that all the classes in the degree program are primarily comprised mostly of female students.

3. Results

We report in the results in Section 3.1 the years of publication of the 753 abstracts from strategy 1, the 2058 abstracts from strategy 2, and the 274 abstracts from strategy 3. We report in Section 3.2 on hit numbers for disability- and ability-related terms in the three sets of abstracts covering different intersectionality terms (RQ1 and 4). We provide in Section 3.3 in a summary statement the results of what intersectionalities were mentioned in conjunction with ableism and with the disability terms (Table A1, Table A2, Table A3, Table A4, Table A5 and Table A6 with full data in Appendix A) (RQ1). We report in Section 3.4 the hit numbers for intersectionality-based concepts mentioned in the literature covered in the set of abstracts obtained through strategies 1–3 (RQ2–3). We provide in Section 3.5 the results of our qualitative content analysis focusing on the intersectionality concepts in relation to disabled people (RQ2 and 3). We report in Section 3.6 on the results of the qualitative analysis for “intersectional* pedagog*” (RQ3). Finally, we report in Section 3.7 the survey answers on the impact of ability judgment-based concepts on different social groups (RQ5).

3.1. Timeline of Publication Hits

As to yearly publications for the 274/753/2,058 downloaded abstracts obtained by using strategy 1–3, there were 2024 = 41/31/89; 2023 = 71/164/323/; 2022 = 41/124/246; 2021 = 26/91/214; 2020 = 33/71/173; 2019 = 19/56/154; 2018 = 10/58/114; 2017 = 13/55/110; 2016 = 2/18/98; 2015 = 5/22/71; 2014 = 3/13/69; 2013 = 6/27/56; 2012 = 2/10/50; 2011 = 1/6/42; 2010 = 1/4/54; 2009 = 2/7/40; 2008 = 1/7/42; 2007 = 1/3/29; 2006 = 1/0/30; 2005 = 1/2/21; 2004 = 0/0/22; 2003 = 3/4/16; 2002 = 3/0/9; 2001 = 2/0/18; 2000 = 0/0/15 (stopped to list years). For a visual representation of the data see Figure 1.

3.2. Quantitative Analysis: Hitcount of Mentioning of Disability- and Ability-Related Terms in the Three PDFs (RQ1 and 4)

Table 2. Hit counts (more than one hit possible per abstract) (columns 2–4) and abstract count (column 5) of disability- and ability-related terms and some concepts we selected based on the literature we judged to influence the intersectionality of disabled people in the three sets of abstracts covering different intersectionality terms.

Terms	The Intersectionality-Based Concepts Terms and the Disability Terms 274 Abstracts; Hits in Abstracts Not Abstract Counts	The Term “Intersectionality” and the Disability Terms; 753 Abstracts; Hits in Abstracts Not Abstract Counts	The Phrase “Intersection of” and the Disability Terms; 2058 Abstracts; Hits in Abstracts Not Abstract Counts	The Term “Intersectionality” in Abstracts from the Three Databases (Scopus, EBSCO-HOST. Web of Science (8018, 21,451, 5361) = 34,830 Abstracts; Below Are Abstract Counts Not Hit Count
“Ability minorit*”	0	0	0	0
“Adhd” OR “autism” OR “attention deficit“ OR “autistic”/“neurodiver*”	2/137/1/493/13	37/234/7/377/64	180/525/42/364/79	19/161/3/60 All together 243 “neurodiver*” 35
“Cognitive impair*”	5	0	1	6
“Deaf”	51	170	264	145
“Disability minorit*”	0	0	0	0
“Disabled activist*”	2	3	4	6
“Disabled artist*”	2	0	1	0
“Disabled people”/“disabled person*”	26	171	123	164
“Disabled”	183	345	617	482
“Dyslexia”	0	26	5	5
“Hearing impair*”	1	0	1	7
“Impair*”	25	128	1027	270
“Learning disab*”	16	29	114	18
“Patient*”	32	14	158	973
“People with disabilities”	40	142	235	303
“Physical disabilit*”	13	47	92	39
“physical* impair*”	0	1	2	12
“Physically disabled”	3	2	2	3
“visual* impair*”	4	13	84	32
“Wheelchair”	37	2	27	6
Ability judgment-related concepts
“Abilit*”	37	138	282	1620
“Ableism”	40	97	95	175
“Disablism” OR “disableism”	1	2	4	9
“Ableist”	24	28	43	47
“Disableist”/”disablist”	0	0	0	0
“Internalized ableism”	1	0	2	0
“Internalized disablism” or “internalized disableism”	0	0	0	0
“Ability security” OR “ability insecurity” or “ableism security” or “ableism insecurity” OR “Ability equity” or “ability inequity” or “ability equality” or “ability inequality” OR “ableism inequity” OR “ableism equity” or “ableism equality” or “ableism inequality” Or Ability privilege OR “Ability discrimination” or “ableism discrimination” OR “Ability oppression” or “ableism oppression” OR “Ability apartheid” or “ableism apartheid” Or “Ability obsolescence” or “ableism obsolescence” OR “Ability consumerism” or “ableism consumerism” or “ability commodification” or “ableism commodification” OR “Ability foresight” or “ableism foresight” Or “Ability governance” or “ableism governance” Or “ability expectation governance”	0	0	0	0
Some human enhancement- and technology-related ability concepts
“human enhancement”	0	0	0	0
“human enhancement technolog*”	0	0	0	0
“Performance enhancement”	0	0	0	1
“human enhancement” AND Ableism or disablism	0	0	0	0
Performance enhancement and ableism or disablism	0	0	0	0
Posthuman	2	3	1	25
Supercrip	0	0	3	1
Superhuman	0	0	3	0
“Assistive technolog*” or “assistive device*”	4	0	41	0
“Technolo*”	42	42	53	1133
Technoableism or techno-ableism	0	0	0	0
Technodoping or techno-doping	0	0	0	0
Techno poor-disabled	0	0	0	0
Techno poor- impaired	0	0	0	0
Techno-supercrip	0	0	0	0
technowashing OR techno-washing	0	0	0	0
“Transhuman*”	0	0	0	0
Some concepts we selected based on the literature we judged to influence the intersectionality of disabled people
“good life”	0	0	0	11
“social good”	0	0	0	5
Burnout	1	3	0	39
Ally or allies or allyship	8	20	8	222
Stress*	22	54	181	1536
Stressor	2	0	4	413
Activist	3	10	15	1284
activism	18	35	51	1187
Disability Studies	27	167	358	125
“Global South”	3	15	15	415
“Well being” OR “well-being” or “wellbeing”	39	59	115	1671
Solidarity	7	12	11	635
Stigma*	93	110	212	1819
Stereotype*	6	25	45	1155
“Social determinants of health”	0	10	19	432
Education	318	668	1342	6037
“Sustainability”	2	4	18	279
“Climate change”	6	9	15	390
poverty	35	79	119	651
Violence or abuse	41/31	156/52	241/94	3055/727
“Emergency management”	0	0	0	2
“Disaster management”	0	0	0	5
“Disaster preparedness”	0	0	0	7
“Emergency preparedness”	0	0	2	1
“Disaster planning”	0	0	0	1
“Emergency planning”	0	0	1	0
“disaster risk reduction”	0	0	6	10
(“Athena SWAN” OR “See change with STEMM Equity Achievement” OR “Dimensions: equity, diversity and inclusion” OR “Science in Australia Gender Equity” OR “NSF ADVANCE”)	0	0	0	18
(“equity, diversity and inclusion” OR “equality, diversity and inclusion” OR “diversity, equity and inclusion” OR “diversity, equality and inclusion” OR “Belonging, Dignity, and Justice” OR “Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Belonging” OR “diversity, Dignity, and Inclusion” OR “Equity, Diversity, Inclusion, and Accessibility” OR “Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion” OR “Inclusion, Diversity, Equity and Accessibility” OR “Inclusion, Diversity, Equity and Accountability” OR “Equity, Diversity, Inclusion, and Decolonization” OR “inclusion, diversity, equity, accessibility” OR “justice, equity, diversity, identity”)	6	5	1	255

(columns 2–4) shows that beyond ableism and ableist, other ability-based concepts are rarely or not at all mentioned. The term “technolog*” had hits but “assistive technolog*” much less and the technology-linked ability judgment terms were not present as were not terms linked to human enhancement. Furthermore, various terms we judged to influence the intersectionality of disabled people generated few or no hits, such as burnout, allyship, EDI-related concepts and policy terms, “global south”, sustainability, climate change, and emergency- and disaster-related terms. Table 2 (column 5) shows that disability terms are low in general, uneven if one compares specific disability terms, that the patient term was higher than any one disability term, and that as to the keywords used to look at social issues that could influence intersectionality an uneven coverage was evident. “Technolog*” was present substantially but “assistive technolog*” and “assistive device*” were not at all present.

3.3. Listing of Phrases of Intersectional Identities and Intersecting Topics Mentioning Disability- and Ability-Related Terms in Abstracts Obtained through Strategies 1 and 2 (RQ1)

We looked at the presence of the intersectionality of ableism mentioned with other isms in the 753 and 2058 abstracts (Table A1, Appendix A); the presence of phrases depicting intersecting identities of disabled people, so using a person, not the term disability, in the 753 and 2058 abstracts (Table A2, Appendix A); phrases using the term “Disabilit*” in intersection with other identities but not as a phrase linked to a person in the 753 abstracts (Table A3, Appendix A); phrases using disability terms in intersection with not only an identity but also a lived reality in the 753 abstracts (Table A4, Appendix A); phrases containing “Intersection of” AND disability terms and an intersection with another identity in the 2058 abstracts (Table A5, Appendix A); and phrases containing “Intersection of” AND disability terms and an intersection with not only another identity but also a lived reality in the 2058 abstracts (Table A6, Appendix A).

As answers to RQ1–4, we found the following: As to the presence of the intersectionality of ableism mentioned with other isms (Table A1, Appendix A), we found 18 abstracts in the 753 abstracts containing the term “intersectionalit*” and our selected disability terms; and 49 abstracts in the 2058 abstracts containing the term “Intersection of” and our selected disability terms. For both sets of abstracts, 30 mentioned racism in a list with ableism, and 11 sexism, of which 8 also mentioned racism. Other isms were rarely mentioned, like speciesism was mentioned seven times; classism, ageism, linguicism, and colonialism twice; and sizeism, healthism, sanism, queer-antagonism, disablism, homophobia, and transphobia once (Table A1, Appendix A).

As to the presence of the phrases of identities of disabled people covering intersectionality (Table A2, Appendix A), we found 36 abstracts linked to the term “autism (one abstract contained the term “neurodiv*”), 34 abstracts linked to the term “deaf”, 33 abstracts linked to the term “disabilit*”, and 20 linked to the term “disabled” in the 753 abstracts containing the term “Intersectionalit*” AND disability terms and in the 2058 abstracts containing the term “Intersection of” AND disability terms.

Furthermore, in Table A2, Appendix A, co-occurring terms were “black” (39 times); “women” (19 times); “girls” (8 times); “LGB*” or “of color” (7 times each); “transgender” or “queer” (4 times each); “men” (3 times); “Hispanic”, “indigenous”, “Sami”, “Asian”, “Maori”, and “Pakeha” (2 times each); and “Dalit”, “Tamil”, “Latinas”, “Latinx”, and “Bedouin” (1 time each).

As to intersectionality phrases that contain the terms “disabilit*” or “disabled” and another identity but not as a phrase linked directly to a person, we found in the 753 abstracts 77 abstracts with “disabilit*” and 7 with “disabled” (Table A3, Appendix A). As to the non-disability/disabled identities, “gender” was listed 29 times; “age” (19 times); “race” (16 times); “sexuality” (8 times); “sexual orientation” or “class” (7 times each); “ethnicity” and “religion” (6 times each); “immigrant”, “economic status”, and “poverty” (4 times each); “caste” (3 times); “migrant”, “of color”, “income”, “illness”, “weight”, “occupation”, “indigeneity”, “socioeconomic status”, “citizenship”, “queer”, “refugee status”, “violence”, and “masculinity” (2 times each); and “obesity”, “political ideology”, “social class”, “social position”, “blackness”, “racism”, “sexism”, “education”, “elderly”, “homeless”, “one-parent households”, “unemployed people”, “Gypsytravellers”, “marital status”, “nationality”, “Asians”, “female”, “heterosexual”, “not male”, “poor”, “not sane”, “less-educated non-workers”, “culture”, “family structure”, “family circumstances”, “geography”, “footwear quality”, “parental status”, “sports”, “interpersonal violence”, “domestic violence”, “Rwanda”, “health insurance”, “nutrition”, and “location within university” (1 time each).

We found 16 relevant abstracts containing the term “disabilit*” in intersection with not only an identity but also a topic/lived reality in the set of 753 abstracts (Table A4, Appendix A). The 16 abstracts contained the following lived realities: sexuality (4 times); religion (2 times); and “genetic technologies”, “online environments”, “family circumstances of the victim”, “food allergy”, “women’s help-seeking decisions”, “Interpersonal Violence”, “domestic violence”, “Library and Information Studies”, “Rwanda”, “diversity in primary school”, “nutrition”, “stigma in LGBTQ+ spaces”, “Special Education”, “UK”, and “location within the University” (1 time each).

To now move to the set of 2058 abstracts, we found 105 abstracts in the set of 2058 abstracts that contained the phrase “Intersection of” and disability terms and intersections with another identity (Table A5, Appendix A). As to the non-disability identities, the following were mentioned: gender (43 times); race/racial (43 times); ethnicity (12 times); age (9 times); class (7 times); culture and language (5 times each); “sexual orientation”, “*LGB*”, “socioeconomic class”/”socioeconomic status”, and “HIV” (4 times each), queerness or giftedness (2 times each); and later-in-life disability, lesbianism, bilingualism, aesthetics, economics, “Social class, “immigration status”, “asexuality”, “impairment”, “invisible disability”, “illness”, “minority status”, “black men”, emotional disability”, social status, math and reading disability, mental/developmental disabilities, Indigenous peoples, and caste (1 time each).

As to Table A6, Appendix A, which covered the presence of the terms “intersection of” and the disability terms and an intersection with not only an identity but also a lived reality in the 2058 abstracts, we found the following: “intersection of” was used to link the disability identity to other intersecting identities and to an intersecting topic/lived reality in 43 abstracts; “intersection of” was used to link the disability identity to an intersecting topic/lived reality but not to another intersecting marginalized identity in 91 abstracts; “intersection of” was used to link to “Disability Studies” in 23 abstracts; and “intersection of” was used to link to different fields/theories including disability-related theories or concepts in 4 abstracts.

As to topic/lived realities, we found the following: “sexualit*”, “migrat*”, and “education” (6 times each); violence and poverty (5 times each); theology and family (4 times each); “motherhood”, “art”, sport*, “AT”/“assistive tech*”, homeless, refugee, employment, and technology (3 times each); “Social Work”, work, media, immigration, Drama, rurality, literacy, and health care (2 times each); and liberal politics, behavioral genetics, “new” eugenics, bullying, sex education, disability activism and online activism, accounting employment, abuse, end-of-life care, environmental damage, disaster risk reduction, juvenile justice, BDSM, land use, pregnancy, online access, public health, substance use disorders, Star Trek, trauma, human–computer interaction and disability rights law, genetic counseling, athleticism, social environment, romantic relationships, juvenile justice, territory, environmental humanities and disability justice, medical arena, activist, entrepreneurship research, place of residence, online learning, philosophy of disability and critical philosophy of race, popular music, neoliberalism, rhetoric, freak show, peace, anti-racist movements for social justice, war, and STEM (1 time each).

3.4. Quantitative Data of Intersectionality-Based Concepts Mentioned in the Literature Covered (Literature Review) (RQ 2 and 3)

Table 3. Hit counts for intersectional concepts present in PDFs of abstracts downloaded (RQ2).

Terms	The Intersectionality Terms and the Disability Terms 274 Abstracts; Hits in Abstracts Not Abstract Counts (Relevant Ones Based on Thematic Content Analysis in Section 3.4)	The Term “Intersectionality” and the Disability Terms; 753 Abstracts; Hits in Abstracts Not Abstract Counts	The Phrase “Intersection of” and the Disability Terms; 2058 Abstracts; Hits in Abstracts Not Abstract Counts
“intersecting identit*”	117 (no thematic analysis)	35	12
2. “Intersectional discrimination”	48 (18 relevant)	15	11
3. “Intersectional experience*”	31 (17 relevant)	11	13
4. “Intersectional identit*”	19 (no thematic analysis)	5	5
5. “intersectional effect*”	18 (5 relevant)	4	2
6. “intersectional oppression*”	12 (5 relevant)	3	0
7. “Intersectional inequalit*”	9 (3 relevant)	2	1
8. “Intersectional analysis”	7 (7 relevant)	32	20
9. “Intersectional inequit*”	6 (0 relevant)	0	0
10. “Intersectional self”	5 (1 relevant)	4	0
11. “intersectional activis*”	4 (2 relevant)	0	0
12. “Intersectional justice”	4 (1 relevant)	0	0
13. “intersectional stigma”	3 (0 relevant)	0	3
14. “Intersectional research”	2 (2 relevant)	7	1
15. “Intersectional aspect*”	2 (2 relevant)	2	5
16. “intersectional bias”	2 (1 relevant)	1	1
17. “Intersectional invisibility*”	2 (2 relevant)	1	1
18. “Intersectional nature”	2 (2 relevant)	4	3
19. “Intersectional disempower*” OR “intersectional empower*”	1 (1 relevant)	0	0
20. “intersectional disempowerment*” OR “intersectional empowerment*”	1 (1 relevant)	0	0
21. “Intersectional mainstreaming”	1 (1 relevant)	3	0
22. “Intersectional impact”	1 (1 relevant)	2	1
23. “Intersectional relationship”	1 (1 relevant)	1	2
24. “Intersectional barrier”	1 (1 relevant)	0	1
25. “Intersectionality justice”	1 (1 relevant)	1	0
26. “intersectional solidarity”	1 (0 relevant)	1	0
27. “Intersectional disability justice”	1 (0 relevant)	1	0
28. “Intersectional disability oppression”	1 (0 relevant)	0	1
29. “Intersectional equit*”	1 (0 relevant)	0	0
30. “intersectional privilege*”	1 (0 relevant)	0	0
31. “Intersectional design”	0	5	0
32. “intersectional fairness”	0	4	0
33. “Intersectional vision”	0	1	0
34. “Intersectional ecological model”	0	0	3
35. “Intersectional vulnerability”	0	0	2
36. “Intersectional co-conditioning”	0	2	0
37. “Intersectional landscape”	0	0	1
38. “Intersectional knowledge”	0	0	1
39. “intersectional adjustment*”	0	0	0
40. “intersectional conflict*”	0	0	0
41. “Intersectional consciousness”	0	0	0
42. “Intersectional Discrimination Index”	0	0	0
43. “Intersectional equalit*”	0	0	0
44. “Intersectional hostility”	0	0	0
45. “intersectional identity stressor*”	0	0	0
46. “intersectional matrix”	0	0	0
47. “intersectional Microaggression*”	0	0	0
48. “intersectional minority stressor*”	0	0	0
49. “Intersectional Pedagog*”	0	0	0
50. “intersectional self-advocacy” OR “intersectional advocacy”	0	0	0
51. “Intersectional stress*”	0	0	0
52. “intersectional struggle”	0	0	0

lists 52 intersectionality-based concepts. Thirty-five were the original ones we used to generate the set of 274 abstracts (Table 1). Seventeen more were found in the 753 and 2058 abstracts and during the qualitative analysis of the 274 abstracts (a given intersectionality-based concept can be present in more than one of the sets of abstracts). Table 3 shows that intersectionality concepts were rarely or not at all used except for “intersecting identit*”, intersectional discrimination, and intersectional experience. Intersectional pedagogy was not mentioned at all.

3.5. Qualitative Analysis of the 274 Abstracts Covering the Intersectional Terms of Table 3 (RQ 2)

Three overarching themes showed up in conjunction with more than one intersectionality concept: a lack of coverage/being ignored, more research needed, and a state of knowledge and knowledge production.

The lack of coverage/visibility/engagement was mentioned in conjunction with the following intersectionality concepts: problem with recognizing intersectional discrimination [184,185,186,187,188] and intersectional experience [189,190]. Intersectional analysis is flagged to neglect disability [23,191], that intersectional analysis has to broaden its focus [192], and that intragroup intersectional analysis is needed [193]. Also, it is noted that social movements struggle to further intersectional narratives [194] and ableism must be included in teacher training and in knowledge production [195].

That more research is needed was mentioned in conjunction with the intersectional experience of disabled people [196,197,198,199,200,201]; the intersections of disability and gender, race, and sexuality in higher education [202]; intersectional oppression [203]; and intersectional effects of quotas needed [204]. The term intersectional research was used twice [133,205].

The state of knowledge and knowledge production was mentioned as follows: intersectional oppressions affect knowledge production [206]; lack of awareness on the “intersectional aspects of disability and forced migration among educational experts and school authorities” [207] (p. 1); and “training and support for educational professionals to better work with students living this intersectional experience” [208] (p. 1). One abstract focused on “intersectional self-determination skills, specifically self-advocacy” [209] (p. 324), stating that they provided “tools for educators to recognize their own and their students’ social and cultural identities and the impact of constructs on students with disabilities with diverse identities” [209] (p. 324).

Now to the individual intersectional concepts that engaged with disabled people.

3.5.1. Intersectional Discrimination

Eighteen relevant abstracts mentioned intersectional discrimination. One main area was the legal use of intersectional discrimination. One argued that people of color with disabilities can and should obtain more robust relief for their harms by asserting intersectional discrimination claims [189]. Three covered how the European legislature is dealing with intersectional discrimination, with all three abstracts noting problems with recognizing intersectional discrimination [184,185,186]. Other abstracts gave examples of intersectional discrimination mentioning; women with disabilities in the job market [210], women and girls with disabilities [211], disabled women [212,213,214], women and girls with disabilities in educational opportunities in India [215], women with disabilities in Serbia living in residential institutions [216], and women with disabilities in Nigeria [217]. The intersectional discrimination of 2SLGBTQ+ disabled people in leisure spaces was flagged [68]. One argued that disability and aging are rarely covered in disability studies because they are seen as “a ‘health’ or ‘quality of life’ issue rather than an issue of intersectional discrimination” [187] (p. 160).

3.5.2. Intersectional Experience

Seventeen relevant abstracts were found. The theme with most abstracts (seven) was that more research is needed on the intersectional experience of disabled people, whereby the intersectional experience mentioned was people with multiple disabilities [196], Black boys with and without disabilities in schools [197], transgender/gender-expansive autistic people [198], BIPOC and deaf LGBTQ+ communities [199], Black autistic women and girls (BAWG) [200], and LGBTQ+ people with disabilities [201]. One argued that ableism must be included as a topic to be discussed in teacher training and in knowledge production [195]. Six abstracts simply list the intersectionality without giving more details, listing ableism [195]; racism, sexism, ableism, and marginalization [218]; autism and gender diversity in adulthood [198]; colonialism, racism, ableism and sexism, particularly in disability services [219]; the intersectional experience of family violence and its impact on the lives of Indigenous mothers and their disabled children [150]; and aboriginal people with disabilities living in rural areas [220]. Another theme with two abstracts both covering race and disability was that the intersectional experience related to disability and other marginalized identities was ignored or rejected [189,190]. All the other topics were only mentioned once. An abstract focused on bioarchaeology to investigate the bones of dead women who were mentally or physically disabled and institutionalization to the history of people with this and other intersectional realities [221], another reflected on the intersectional experiences of disability communities in social work using climate change as an example [222]. One argued for more training and support for educational professionals to be better prepared to engage with the intersectional experience of students with disabilities who identify as LGBTQ+ [208]. Translanguaging is highlighted as a “necessary practice among hearing and deaf persons at the table that can and should be expanded to consider the intersectional experiences of communicators” [223] (p. 1).

3.5.3. Intersectional Analysis/Analyses

Intersectional analysis generated seven relevant abstracts. One argued that intersectional analysis has to broaden its focus beyond the “differences within or between identity-based groups” [192] (p. 313). One noted that intersectional analysis shows that “disability is co-constructed by other axes of oppression and that there is a compounding impact of multiple de-valued identities” [140] (p. 249). One argued that their intersectional analysis found that the intersectionality of being a person with a disability living with HIV influenced “(1) meanings of HIV and disability linked with time and trajectory; (2) oppression and negotiation related to accessing health services, and (3) social roles and relationships” [224] (p. 2161). One made the case that social movements struggle to further intersectional narratives [194], another cited (Erevelles 2011), arguing that the intersectional analysis neglects disability [23] (see also [191]). Intragroup intersectional analysis is seen as useful for “understanding how gender and education together structure the access of people with disabilities to decent and secure employment” [193] (p. 102). It is also argued that an “intersectional analysis changes the lens from which disability and incarceration are conceptualized and analyzed” [225] (p. 385).

3.5.4. Intersectional Oppression

Intersectional oppression was mentioned in five relevant abstracts. One abstract mentioned the intersections of race and disability [206], that intersectional oppression was a main feature of DisCrit [206], and that intersectional oppressions affect knowledge production [206]. One argued that research is missing on the intersection of African American/Black (AA/B) young adults with autism spectrum disorders that covers both identities and that little is known about their intersectional oppression [203]. One simply noted that fat people experience intersectional oppression with disability mentioned as one intersectionality [226]. One argued that “the traumatizing effects of colonialism on the ‘lived’ realities of disabled and other disenfranchised groups of students” [227] (p. 277). should be investigated whereby they classified trauma as an aspect of intersectional oppression [227]. “Eco-Crip: Cybotanical Futures” is a website that explores the intersectional oppressions of disabled BIPOC individuals [228].

3.5.5. Intersectional Effect

Intersectional effect was mentioned in five relevant abstracts. Intersectional effects were mentioned in conjunction with race/ethnicity and disability on flu vaccine use [229]; “the very poorest—often women, children, the elderly, and people with disabilities—tend to suffer cumulative and intersectional effects not only from weather-related instability and destruction but also from existing socioeconomic inequities” [230] (p. 42); and ethnic minorities and men with disabilities on “the glass escalator to higher-level work” [231] (p. 277). One argued that research is needed on the intersections of disability and gender and disability in higher education [202] and another that research on the intersectional effects of quotas is needed [204].

3.5.6. Intersectional Inequality

Intersectional inequality was covered in three relevant abstracts. In one abstract, data from the 2008–2019 American Community Survey is used to provide evidence of inequalities in poverty and unemployment at the intersection of disability, gender, race-ethnicity, and age [232]. In one abstract it was simply stated, “four stigmatizing health conditions (HIV leprosy, schizophrenia, and diabetes) and disability” [233] (p. 1), and another “disabled, less-educated non-workers” group had the highest rates of depression [234] (p. 384) without engaging with specifics on the intersectional inequality.

3.5.7. Intersectional Invisibility

Intersectional invisibility was mentioned in two relevant abstracts. One noted that traditional offline activism is often not accessible to people “who experience intersectional invisibility” [235] (p. 170) and that these invisible activists have to restructure activism to enable themselves to be activists, whereby the article is about queer disabled activists “who reject traditional notions of activism as ableist, heterosexist, and racist” [235] (p. 170). The second one mentioned the intersectional invisibility of race and disability status, focusing on Asian Americans with disabilities [236].

3.5.8. Intersectional Bias

Two relevant abstracts covered intersectional bias. In one abstract it is argued that intersectional bias is caused by “multiple social factors like gender, sexuality, race, disability, religion, etc.” [237] (p. 1), and they highlight the program “Word Bias” that they say flags the biases but they do not give details on disability [237] (see also [52]).

3.5.9. Intersectional Research

Of the two relevant abstracts, both argued that there is little intersectional research and that more intersectional research is needed related to disabled students [133,205].

3.5.10. Intersectional Activism

Intersectional activism was mentioned twice in a relevant way, one abstract covered women with disabilities in Haiti [238] and in the second abstract it was argued that the use of digital technologies for intersectional activism of communities linked to race, class, or disability is problematic [239].

3.5.11. Intersectional Aspects

Intersectional aspects generated two relevant hits. One noted that the “intersectional aspects of identity seem to impact the experiences of workers with disabilities in three ways. There is evidence of conventional stereotyping associated with the other aspects of their identity, gender role congruence effects, and negative responses by members of the dominant culture to perceived economic threat” [240] (p. 417). The second noted that there is a lack of awareness of the “intersectional aspects of disability and forced migration among educational experts and school authorities” [207] (p. 423).

3.5.12. Intersectional Disempowerment

One relevant abstract highlighted that the United Nations’ Agenda 2030 is an example of the intersectional disempowerment of children with communication and/or swallowing disability [241].

3.5.13. Intersectional Self

Intersectional self only had one relevant abstract focusing on intersectional self-determination skills for self-advocacy, stating that they provided tools for this for students and educators [209].

3.5.14. Intersectional Barrier

One abstract simply mentioned the intersectional barriers of “people with disabilities from racial and ethnic minority groups” [242] (p. 1).

3.5.15. Intersectional Relationship

In the one relevant abstract, it is noted that “Disability and Diversity Studies” (DDS) identifies intersectional relationships between diversity categories [243].

3.5.16. Intersectional Impact

One relevant abstract noted the intersectional impact of “gender and dis/ability type on school discipline outcomes among Black students” [118] (p. 456).

3.5.17. Intersectional Nature

Of the two relevant abstracts, one was an intro to a Special Issue with the title “disabled people and the intersectional nature of social inclusion” [244] and one made the case that human rights laws do not consider the intersectional nature of discrimination [188].

3.5.18. Intersectional Mainstreaming

The one relevant abstract argued for “intersectional mainstreaming” in international human rights law, using as examples disabled women, disabled people who belong to racial or ethnic minorities, and disabled children [245].

3.5.19. Intersectional Justice and Intersectionality Justice

One abstract covered teacher candidates and their engagement with “Dis/ability and Race” [246]. In the abstract, it is argued that the “geographies of exclusion (e.g., segregated special education classrooms, school district zoning) are constituted through intersecting oppressive ideologies (e.g., ableism, racism, classism) that co-naturalize notions of normalcy; and deviance and yield harmful consequences for disabled children of Color” [246] (p. 245). The study found that “white teacher candidates investment in dominant racial ideologies” [246] (p. 245) is well documented but “the extent to which white teacher candidates emotionally ascribe to oppressive constructions of ability have been underexamined” [246] (p. 245). The authors conclude that “research with white teachers cannot ignore emotional practices that perpetuate harm for multiple-marginalized children. Instead, researchers must surface these engagements head-on, using DisCrit as a driver in teacher education research toward intersectional justice” [246] (p. 245).

In a second abstract, intersectionality is described as “the study of the ways that race, gender, disability, sexuality, class, age, and other social categories are mutually shaped and interrelated through forces such as colonialism, neoliberalism, geopolitics, and cultural configurations to produce shifting relations of power and oppression” [247] (p. 409). It was then stated that the study offered some “ethical principles for doing intersectionality justice in social research” [247] (p. 409).

3.6. Result for Abstract and Full-Text Search for Intersectional Pedagogy (RQ 3)

None of the 274 abstracts obtained with strategy 3 and the online abstract search with strategy 4a (disability terms from strategy 1 or the terms (“ableist” or “ableism” or “disableism” or “disablism” or “disableist” or “disablist” and “intersection* Pedagog*”)) generated any hits. Strategies 4b and c that covered an abstract/full-text and full-text/abstract search combination for the terms from strategy 4a generated 21/8 hits (not analyzed). The full text/full-text search for the terms from strategy 4a (strategy 4d) generated 109 hits, and after duplicate removal, 84 hits remained. Seventy full texts were available for download and downloaded (strategy 4d). Analyzing the 70 full texts, we found that not one full text was relevant, as in none engaged in depth with intersectional pedagogy in conjunction with disabled people. One full text covered disabled people and intersectional pedagogy in a sense that it covered violence against disabled women as part of a women’s course where many other intersectionalities were also covered [248], and that book chapter was in a book on intersectional pedagogy called “Intersectional Pedagogy: Complicating Identity and Social Justice”. However, that chapter did not focus on how to do intersectional pedagogy related to disabled people. The same is true for [73], which mentioned disability as an intersectional identity but as part of a bigger picture of intersectional pedagogy. Often, when a disability term was mentioned in the full text, “intersectional pedagogy” was mentioned in the references list based on some in-text citations not linked to disability content. Using the proximity search function within Adobe Acrobat (setting proximity as within 20 words of each other) of “intersectionalit*” and “pedagog*” and any one of the disability terms we used, not one generated relevant content. For example, the proximity search with “intersectional*” and “pedagog*” and “disabilit*” generated 8 hits in the 1 PDF file we generated from all 70 full texts. And, all 8 hits were false positives such as covering “intersectionality, pedagogy” under keywords or the author bio lists disability and intersectional pedagogy as two of many research interests with no indication that these two research interests intersect. Using “disabled” only generated two hits in the proximity search. Or, deaf generated four hits for one abstract, but deaf was mentioned in the first reference of the reference list, and intersectional and pedagogy in the text as separate items just before the reference section. The words “impair*” or “deaf” or“neurodiv*” or “dyslexia” or “ADHD” or “ASD” or “attention deficit” or “autistic” or “wheelchair*” or “ableism” or “disablism” or “ableist” or “disableist” generated no hits.

The term “autism” generated two hits both the same reference to the article “Privilege, Social Identity and Autism: Preparing Preservice Practitioners for Intersectional Pedagogy”. However, searching our three databases, that article could not be found in the databases we used as it is in the journal “DADD online journal”, which is not covered by our databases. But as it is a relevant article, the abstract states

“This manuscript challenges the biomedical model of autism by examining autism from a socio-political model of disability related to disability studies, social justice, and intersectional pedagogy. An individual’s identity is multifaceted, and a person may experience marginalization through oppressions that impact multiple aspects of their identity beyond their disability. This kind of intersectionality recognizes that these systems of social power lead to social privilege and marginalization. Intersectional pedagogical practices help educators interrogate how their perceptions of autism were socialized and how that socialization intentionally or unintentionally affects students with autism and the ability to be creative when recognizing multiple layers of identity”

[249] (p. 112)

As to content in the full text, here are three quotes that give the relevant content.

“Preservice practitioners must all be committed to doing the hard work to look at these biases, especially around disability. Intersectional pedagogical practices help them interrogate how their perceptions of disability were socialized and how that socialization intentionally or unintentionally affects students and the ability to be creative when recognizing multiple layers of identity”

[249] (p. 115)

“Preparing preservice practitioners to consider autism, and disability in general, as one aspect of an individual’s multidimensional identity requires a shift from the biomedical model perspective of a diagnosis”

[249] (p. 119)

“Training preservice practitioners to recognize, acknowledge and embrace autism as a component of an individual’s intersectional identity begins with providing the preservice practitioner with strategies to reframe their perspective of disability. Intersectionality provides the framework for shifting pedagogical practices toward a social justice, civil rights lens that recognizes disability as a minoritized component of an individual’s identity. Only then are practitioners equipped to serve all populations and better advocate for their multidimensional students and families (Proctor et al., 2017)”

[249] (p. 119)

3.7. Survey Answers on the Impact of Realities Depicted by Ability-Based Concepts on Different Social Groups (RQ 5)

All the tables with the survey results are in Appendix B. The answers were consistent when comparing the answers for the different ability terms (active disablism or omission/passive disablism; ability insecurity; ability identity insecurity; ability identity abuse; ability discrimination; ability privilege; and ability inequity versions 1 and 2) and how they ranked the different social groups from which they could choose. Disabled people were flagged throughout by the highest number of students as the group experiencing negative effects depicted by the different ability judgment concepts. However, many other social groups were identified as experiencing negative effects depicted by the different ability judgments. Of the social entities linked to humans, men were identified as the group impacted the least in a negative way.

4. Discussion

4.1. Intersectionality of Disabled People

Intersectionality is increasingly noted as an issue that needs to be addressed [1,3,4,5]. However, it is argued that disabled people have been neglected in the intersectionality discourse [21,23,153,154,155]. The theme of being ignored, being invisible, and that more engagement with the intersectionality of disabled people is needed was also present in thirteen of our relevant abstracts covering intersectional concepts [23,184,185,186,187,188,189,190,191,192,193,194,195] (Section 3.4). Fitting this sentiment, it was stated in eleven abstracts that more research is needed [133,196,197,198,199,200,201,202,203,204,205], and in four abstracts the state of knowledge and knowledge production was questioned [206,207,208,209]. Interestingly, the phrase “intersectional knowledge” was not found once. The starting point in our study was the 34,830 abstracts that contained the term “intersectionality”; the 259,501 abstracts that contained the phrase “intersection of”; and the 11,653 abstracts that contained the 35 intersectionality-based concepts. The numbers for these abstracts that contained our disability terms were 753, 2058, and 274. And if the starting abstracts are set to 100%, our disability terms containing abstracts reflected 2.16%, 0.79%, and 2.35% of these abstracts. The percentage numbers suggest that disabled people are under-engaged within the intersectionality-focused academic literature. These percentage numbers are for all the disability terms. Table 2, which contains also numbers for the online abstract search of the 34,830 abstracts for the disability terms we used, shows that the numbers are very uneven if one compares them for specific disabilities. For example, the term “neurodivers*” showed up in only 35 abstracts (column 4). Interestingly, the term “patient*”, which was not part of our disability terms, was the highest hit in the 34,830 abstracts (n = 973), (column 4).

That the academic engagement with the intersectionality of disabled people is lacking could have many reasons. For example, it could be due to the precarious situation of disabled academics and disabled community members as knowledge producers on the social reality of disabled people in general and the intersection of disabled people with other marginalized groups. It could also be that non-disabled academics rather focus on other marginalized groups as a research agenda or that they prefer to work on a medical angle related to disabled people. Then, many non-disabled researchers might not think about disabled people in the case where intersectionality is covered in conjunction with a specific topic, within which disabled people are invisible as a social problem research question in the topic in general. Now to expand on the various reasons.

To start with the possible reason that the very precarious situation of disabled academics as knowledge producers [146,250,251,252,253,254,255] might be one factor for our findings. The 2019 data from Statistics Canada on unfair treatment, discrimination, or harassment among post-secondary faculty and researchers show that disabled academics experienced the highest level of harassment (47%) and unfair treatment (35%) of the marginalized groups listed [256]. As other marginalized groups also experience harassment and unfair treatment [256], the situation of a disabled academic who also belongs to another marginalized group might be even more precarious. This bad treatment might deter many disabled academics from working on disability justice issues, including the intersectionality of disabled people. Given the negative treatment as a disabled academic [256], it is not surprising that many disabled academics do not declare themselves as disabled people but actively try to hide, mask, and camouflage being a disabled person [257]. The 2019 data by Statistics Canada on how many disabled people are in academic positions only list 6.7% self-identifying as disabled academics [258]. Given the number of people who all fall under the category of disabled people, this number suggests that most disabled academics do not declare themselves. The number of disabled academics who camouflage might be even higher if they also belong to another marginalized identity they cannot hide, as they must also deal with the problems linked to the other marginalized identity. We suggest that one of the consequences of masking might be that disabled academics who do not declare themselves as disabled people might not choose to work on disability justice issues, including on the topic of intersectionality of disabled people, as this might increase their danger of outing themselves.

Disabled community members could also produce the knowledge, which could inform academic research on the intersectionality of disabled people carried out by disabled or non-disabled academics. Many granting agencies list the importance of involving members from marginalized groups as knowledge producers [259]. However, to include disabled community members in academic research as knowledge producers is not that simple. If one looks at all the social barriers, including attitudinal barriers to the lived reality of disabled people listed in the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, for example [260], it is to be expected that disabled community members face many barriers to being knowledge producers and these barriers are very likely higher if disabled community members also belong to another marginalized identity.

Then, non-disabled academics from marginalized groups could produce data on the intersectionality of disabled people with their own marginalized identity or other marginalized identities. However, if the marginalized group the academic belongs to is in an intersectional conflict with the disabled members of their marginalized identity, this might decrease the desire to focus on disabled people as a social justice issue in their academic inquiries. Another reason could be that the hierarchy we see around the mention and engagement with marginalized groups that often leaves out disabled people even in academic discussions around equity, diversity, and inclusion [146] simply plays itself out also in producing data on the intersectionality of disabled people.

Then, there is the prevailing attitudinal bias disabled people face in society and academic inquiries [260,261,262,263,264], which includes the dominance of the medical narrative around disabled people. This dominance impacts the scope of research questions asked in relation to disabled people, which historically were and still are biased towards medical questions [265] instead of engaging with eliminating the social cause of the negative lived reality of disabled people [266]. This prevailing bias could be another reason for our findings, as it might be more rewarding in the academic system to focus on medical questions. Then, there is the case that intersectionality is covered in conjunction with a specific topic; a topic where disabled people as an academic non-medical inquiry are so invisible that non-disabled researchers might never encounter writings or data or learn about it as students, which would make them think that disabled people might face social problems related to that topic, which might be worth inquiring about.

Our data also showed that the term “Global South” was rarely mentioned, although the term “Global South” was present in the 34,830 abstracts containing the term “intersectionality”. This is a problem given that the majority of disabled people live in the “Global South” [267]. As such, the data on the intersectionality of disabled people in the Global South should be significantly increased, whereby these efforts have to take into account that disabled people as knowledge producers in the Global South face many barriers to their lived reality as others do but then also face barriers as knowledge producers that are specific to them and to people in the Global South.

As to intersectionality, phrases that depicted a disabled person and another area or identity in the 753 and 2058 abstracts, for both sets of abstracts, we found 36 abstracts linked to the term “autism (one abstract contained the term “neurodiv*”), 34 abstracts linked to the term “deaf”, 33 abstracts linked to the term “disabilit*”, and 20 linked to the term “disabled” (Table A2, Appendix A).

In Table A2, Appendix A, co-occurring terms with the disability terms were “black” (39 times); “women” (19 times); “girls” (8 times); “LGB*” or “of color” (7 times each); “transgender” or “queer” (4 times each); “men” (3 times); “Hispanic”, “Indigenous”, “Sami”, “Asian”, “Maori”, “Pakeha”, (2 times each); and “Dalit”, “Tamil”, “Latinas”, “Latinx”, “Bedouin” (1 time each). Table A3 and Table A5, Appendix A show intersectionality phrases that contained the terms “disabilit*” or “disabled”. Race and gender were the ones mentioned the most, but many intersectionalities were mentioned once or twice.

Our findings suggest that it is recognized that there are many intersectionalities in conjunction with disabled people. However, many of these intersectionalities in conjunction with disabled people were only mentioned once or twice.

As such, our findings suggest that these other marginalized groups need more coverage.

Furthermore, we did find little engagement with the possibility that a disabled person can have two or more body/mind characteristics labeled as disabilities that could intersect with each other (one could call this intra-sectionality, the presence of two identities normally clustered under one group) or that each of the disabilities intersects in different ways with other marginalized identities. This is a problem, as there could be various intersectional problems based on the reality that different disabilities could be judged differently (covered more under 4.2) by the person themselves and members from marginalized groups.

Table A4 and Table A6, Appendix A show which lived realities were identified to intersect with disabled people. Table A4, Appendix A shows 17 lived realities in the 753 abstracts, but only sexuality (four times) and religion (two times) were mentioned more than one time. Table A6, Appendix A shows over 67 lived realities in the 2058 abstracts (Table A6, Appendix A). “Sexualit*”, “migrat*”, and “education” were each mentioned six times, and violence and poverty each five times. However, most were only mentioned once or twice. Even when we searched the abstracts for various terms we judged to influence the intersectionality of disabled people, such as burnout, allyship, EDI-related concepts and policy terms, “global south”, sustainability, climate change, and emergency- and disaster-related terms, the search (with the terms not having to be in a phrase with intersectionality) generated few or no hits (Table 2). This is a problem. The consequences of the intersectionality of disabled people with other marginalized groups play themselves out differently for different problematic lived realities and topics, and for any given lived reality, they play themselves out differently for different disabilities. Interestingly, our online hit count search (Table 2, column 5) showed that some of the terms (e.g., EDI phrases, climate change, sustainability) were present in the 34,830 abstracts (column 5), but not much in the 753 abstracts (column 3) we generated from the 34,830 abstracts by searching for the disability terms. Percentage-wise, the terms violence, abuse, and poverty were disproportionately high in our 753 abstracts in comparison to the 34,830 abstracts, indicating that these are big problems disabled people face. Some terms, such as the emergency and disaster ones, were rarely present in the 34,830 and 753 abstracts, suggesting a disconnect between emergency and disaster planning, preparedness, and the management academic literature and intersectionality in general.

Coming back to our results from Table A4 and Table A6, Appendix A, the fact that so many lived realities and topics were mentioned so little or not at all might not be surprising given that many of these lived realities or topics are rarely mentioned in conjunction with disabled people in the academic literature in general. If disabled people are rarely visible as a group in conjunction with certain topics, then the intersectionality aspect will be visible even less. For example, it is noted that there is a problem with the coverage of disabled people in the academic literature focusing on equity, diversity, and inclusion [146]. As there is a problem in the coverage of disabled people in general, our hit counts for EDI-related phrases and policy terms for the disability containing sets of abstracts (Table 2, columns 2–4) are no surprise. Nevertheless, our results indicate a missed opportunity, as the intersectionality lens could be used much more to link disabled people to other marginalized groups.

4.2. Intersectionality of Disabled People through the Lens of Intersectionality-Based Concepts

To generate content on the use of intersectionality concepts we started with 35 intersectional concepts we searched for (274 abstracts obtained with search strategy 3, Table 1). During the qualitative analysis of the 274 abstracts and the hit count analysis of the other two sets of abstracts downloaded, we found more intersectionality-based concepts ending up with 52 intersectionality-based concepts. Of these 52 intersectionality-based concepts (Table 3 and qualitative content analysis), 22 had no hits. Only intersectional discrimination (18), intersectional experience* (17), and intersectional analysis*(7) were present in more than five abstracts with relevant content. “Intersecting identit*” and “intersectional identit*” had the most hits, but we did not see these terms as identifying specific intersectionality problems.

All the intersectionality-based concepts could be employed more to engage with the intersectionality issues disabled people face especially the ones that indicate concrete intersectionality problems such as intersectional conflict. For example, the concepts of intersectional invisibility (generated only two hits) and intersectional conflict and intersectional solidarity generated no hits (Table 3), although these three intersectionality-based concepts are important for disabled people. Many authors wrote about not only the invisibility of and lack of solidarity with disabled women within the feminist movement (so intersectional invisibility, for which we found two relevant abstracts [235,236] and lack of intersectional solidarity, for which we found no relevant abstract), but also the intersectional conflicts disabled women experience (for which we found no relevant abstract) (without using these intersectional terms) (see for example, [22,156,157,158]).

Intersectional invisibility covers the dynamic that people with multiple marginalized identities often feel more invisible than individuals who have one or zero marginalized identities [31,37]. Disabled people already feel they are invisible in general, as the motto used by the disability community “Nothing about us without us” [268,269,270,271,272,273,274] indicates. This general invisibility increases the danger that disabled people also experience intersectional invisibility if they belong to another marginalized identity. It was noted in our data that traditional offline activism is often not accessible because of the intersectional invisibility of disabled people [235]. In essence, what this abstract highlights is that non-disabled people do not have the knowledge needed on the lived reality of disabled people intersecting with any given marginalized identity. Then, if disabled people are intersectional invisible, the needed data are not generated or distributed where it is needed. This lack of data and knowledge leads to problematic perceptions of disabled people, which in turn influences research agendas, teaching content, and policy decisions negatively.

Intersectional solidarity is an important aspect for marginalized groups [3,106]. Intersectional solidarity is important also for disabled people as disabled people need allies from the marginalized groups they intersect with. The measure for political solidarity [275] identifies specific requirements for solidarity, namely that it is important that one can relate to the person, that one identifies with the cause of that person, and that one sees a role for oneself in that cause [275]. These requirements [275] demand that one can relate to the disabled person, that one must understand what disabled people face, and that one has to be able to identify with that struggle. Intersectional invisibility and intersectional conflicts increase the danger of a decrease in intersectional solidarity and with that, the chance of allies originating from that intersecting marginalized identity decreases. Not being able to relate might also influence whether one engages with the intersectionality of disabled people research-wise.

Then, disabled people are not a homogenous group. Many different body/mind characteristics are linked to the identity of being a disabled person. And, there are many different views of these characteristics (by disabled people and non-disabled people). For example, some see a given body/mind characteristic as an impairment, while others do not.

Then, there are also many views as to where the disablement originates from. Some see the disablement to originate purely in the actions of society (e.g., disabled people who do see nothing wrong with their body/mind but see it as simply not fitting a given norm). Others see the disablement to originate both in society’s actions towards them and their bodies (for disabled people who see their bodies as having an impairment). And some disabled people see only their bodies as being the cause of their disablement. Some see the very term disability to mean that the disablement is a combination between the impaired body and the social reaction to that body/mind [260].

Given these different views, views also differ on the actions needed. Some see a given impairment in need of fixing, while others see the need to fix the social barriers a person with that impairment experiences. Some only see the need for the social barriers to be fixed and not the body/mind.

Then, there is the issue that many make distinctions between different body/mind characteristics. For example, many make a distinction between “physical disability”, as in not fitting a physical ability norm, and “intellectual disability”, as in not fitting an intellectual ability norm [276,277,278]. The existence of hierarchies of disabilities as in body/mind characteristics is well described in the academic literature (e.g., [279,280,281]),

In general, all these different perceptions of the body/mind characteristics, the origination of the disablement, the hierarchies of disabilities as in body/mind characteristics, and the actions needed could play themselves out differently in conjunction with various intersectionality-based concepts such as intersectional conflict and intersectional solidarity. Disabled women experienced intersectional conflict, for example, in the debate around prenatal testing because one reason for treating the “disability” characteristic differently from other prenatal characteristics is based on that impairment label [282].

In general, the very complicated issue of how others judge disabled people and how disabled people judge themselves demands a thorough academic engagement with the intersectionality of disabled people. The intersectionality-based concepts are very helpful in addressing different intersectionality-based problems disabled people as a whole face, but also the differences in intersectionality-based problems encountered by disabled people exhibiting different body/mind characteristics.

The intersectional conflicts disabled people as a group experience are often a chronic state. Living in a constant state of intersectional conflict comes with consequences, one of which could potentially be an increased danger of burnout (we found no relevant abstract covering burnout in our study). Disabled people experience burnout on many levels, from workplace to activism to life burnout, whereby the root cause of this burnout is often disablism burnout [257,283,284,285], the systemic discrimination based on arbitrary ability judgments, and/or ability judgments based on or rooted in ability privilege and/or irrelevant ability norms [77]. Intersectional conflict can lead to intersectional burnout (the one academic source containing the phrase we could find outside of our search parameters is in [286] (although the exact phrase is only in the keywords)). As such, intersectional disabled people are in increased danger of disablism burnout due to the added problem of intersectional burnout due to the intersectionality conflict. Intersectional conflicts can also lead to ally burnout. The conflict between marginalized groups is seen as one reason for activist burnout in general [287,288,289], which impacts being an ally, who is expected to be an activist [290]. As such, intersectional conflicts add to the burnout danger for allies. Therefore, more coverage of allyship in relation to the intersectionality of disabled people is warranted. Of our ally term-related hits, the relevant one noted that Black deaf women saw Black deaf networks in the same institution as their allies [291]. Intersectional conflicts can also hinder a good life, as different intersectional identities might see what a “good life” is differently and might face different challenges for a good life (we had 0 hits with a “good life”). The same reasoning applies to “social good”. What is seen as a social good might be impacting different marginalized groups differently, and as such, could lead to intersectional conflict. How the issues of a “good life” and “social good” are discussed is of importance for disabled people in general, including disabled people with another intersectional identity. As such, these concepts need to be investigated much more through the intersectionality lens, and intersectional concepts in conjunction with the identity of disabled people.

All the intersectionality-based concepts should be engaged with more.

For example, we found two sources mentioning the concept of intersectional bias [52,237]. This concept should be used much more in relation to disabled people, given that implicit, explicit, and unconscious bias against disabled people is well recognized (see, for example, [292,293]), and the many articles that recognize algorithm bias related to various marginalized groups.

4.3. Intersectionality through Ability-Based Concepts

Except for ableism, ability judgment-based concepts were not used in conjunction with intersectionality and disabled people. Ableism was mentioned with other isms in 18 of the 753 abstracts and 49 of the 2058 abstracts (Table A1, Appendix A). For both sets of abstracts, 30 mentioned racism in a list with ableism, 11 sexism, of which 8 also mentioned racism, and speciesism was mentioned seven times. Classism, ageism, linguicism, and colonialism were mentioned twice, and sizeism, healthism, sanism, queer-antagonism, disablism, homophobia, and transphobia once (Table A1, Appendix A).

Many intersectionality-based concepts could be engaged with by using the different ability judgment-based concepts.

The participants of our survey saw many of these entities (Post-secondary students, Non-University apprenticeship students, Blue collar workers, Men, Women, People with low income, People with high income, Countries of the North, Countries of the South, Disabled people, Nonbinary people, Immigrants to Canada, Immigrants to other countries, Indigenous people in Canada, People of ethnic background not a majority in Canada, Youth, The Elderly, Single parents, Family caregiver, Animals, and Nature) experiencing active disablism or omission/passive disablism, ability insecurity, ability identity insecurity, ability identity abuse, ability discrimination, ability privilege, and ability inequity. In another recent study, students indicated that different social groups have different ability expectations [83], which influences how different social groups judge and interact with each other.

Our survey results and the results of the other study [83] indicate that ability-based actions and judgments are one overarching dynamic impacting different social identities, and as such, impact all kinds of intersectional identities and intersectionality-based problems. Ability judgment-based concepts could be used as tools to further intersectional analysis because every marginalized group is ability-judged. That people of different identities have different ability expectations can be one factor in intersectional conflicts, especially for people who are already on the receiving end of negative ability judgments, as indicated in our survey. Indeed, our survey results suggest that there are differences in the danger of experiencing negative ability-based judgments and, as such, the danger of intersectional conflict will be different between different identities. Minister gave an example of the intersectional conflict experienced by disabled women.

“In a society where women were denied social and religious equality with men on the basis of their perceived lack of physical, intellectual, and moral ability, early women’s rights activists argued for gender equality by contending that women and men have equal capabilities. Although this argument of equal gender capability became the foundation for the women’s movement, it assumed an ideology of ability present within nineteenth-century health reform movements-an ideology which marginalizes people with disabilities”

[21] (p. 5)

To look at this quote through the lens of some ability judgment-based concepts. The quote shows an example of internalized ableism (women were buying into the idea that women had to be as able as men), which led to disabled women being collateral damage as they would not fit the strategy of pushing for the “as able as men”, which by itself can be seen as internalized disablism (one internalizes the disabling use of ability judgments as just and right). Now to move beyond the Minister quote.

Intersectional hostility, intersectional struggle, intersectional adjustment, and intersectional solidarity [24] are used like a matrix of how oneself and other social actors could view a given identity a person has. This view can play itself out differently based on different ability expectations. Different identities might be seen as ability-deficient depending on the abilities seen as essential.

Ability identity security means that one can be at ease with one’s set of abilities [294]. To be at ease with one’s abilities is essential for everyone, not just for disabled people. The Minister quote highlighted that women experienced ability identity insecurity as men decided that their abilities were inferior to theirs. Ability identity security could be used to counter a widespread problem for many members of all marginalized groups in that they do not accept who they are due to being ability-judged. Intersectional self is how one sees their own intersectionality [25,26,27,28]. The concept of ability identity security could be used to counter narratives that generate barriers to accepting one’s intersectional self. Ability inequity is another useful term. Ability inequity is a “normative term denoting an unjust or unfair distribution of access to and protection from abilities generated through human interventions” [295] (p. 16). All the marginalized groups experience ability inequity. As such, one could use this concept to question this social reality in general, and one could use this term also to discuss specific ability inequity evident between intersecting identities. Ability inequity could be linked to the issue of intersectional privilege. Intersectional consciousness refers to people’s awareness of privileges and disadvantages associated with multiple intersecting identities that shape their experiences [3]. Using the concept of ability privileges [92] could bring the intersecting identities together, as all will exhibit ability privileges themselves and all will experience negative lived realities due to societal realities that give ability privileges to non-marginalized groups. As such, the concept of ability privilege enhances the analysis of intersectional privilege [34,35,36,73]. The concept of intersectional oppression [29,30,31,32,33] is applied to various intersections and is linked to privilege [34,35,36,73], and as such, ability privilege could enrich the discussion of intersectional oppression. Ability privileges are gained in many different circumstances. If one has money, one could engage in green consumerism [92], or if one lives in urban centers, one might have access to fast internet, which one might not have access to in rural areas. If one can climb stairs, one can visit their neighbor and socialize; otherwise, one often cannot, given how many private homes have steps outside [296]. We often use language in ways that hide ability privileges. For example, we use the term “accommodation” for a wheelchair washroom but not that the very washroom is an accommodation to human physiology.

Furthermore, ability privileges are not static. Many of the ability-privileged might be ability privilege-impaired in the future, not only because of losing certain abilities like by aging but also by the constant ability creep society engages in where new abilities are seen as essential and other abilities become obsolete (see the appearance of the term learning disability, for example [297,298,299,300,301]).

To conclude this section, we cover now a specific area, and that is the constant changes in ability judgments linked to advancements in science and technology.

Advancements in cyborgization and other human enhancements beyond the species-typical, enable society to generate new ability expectations and with that new ability privileges [92]. Given that for many being able to enhance oneself will depend on income, which many marginalized people do not have, the enhancement becomes an ability privilege, which will open access to many other abilities, which will influence one’s intersectional self and lead to intersectional conflicts. None of the human enhancement and technology-related ability-linked concepts (Table 2) generated any hits, which means they are not used to enrich the intersectionality discourse, although the human enhancement area might increasingly become an area of intersectional conflict, and the ability judgment-based concepts are well positioned to analyze this.

4.4. Intersectional Pedagogy

Intersectional pedagogy was not mentioned at all in the abstracts, and none of the 70 full texts engaged in depth with intersectional pedagogy in relation to disabled people (Table 3 and the qualitative content analysis of 70 full texts, Section 3.7). The one full text that covered disabled people as a main topic was a citation in some of our 70 full texts, and that journal was not listed in any of the databases.

Effective intersectional pedagogy “conceptualizes intersectionality as a complex analysis of both privileged and oppressed social identities that simultaneously interact to create systemic inequalities and therefore, alter lived experiences of prejudice and discrimination, privilege and opportunities, and perspectives from particular social locations” [73] (p. 9). It is argued that,

“intersectional pedagogy (IP) is an educational intervention to help learners develop a social justice consciousness about interlocking systems of oppression that create injustice at the individual, group, and societal levels”

[74] (p. 1)

For that to work, disabled people must be visible in the intersectional pedagogy discussions. The negative use of ability-based judgment (disablism) must be visible in intersectional pedagogy as one form of oppression and must be linked to intersectionality-based concepts. Intersectional pedagogy also should make use of all the ability judgment-based concepts. For example, ability privilege [92] could be used to discuss intersectional privilege. All the ability-based concepts could be used to decrease the othering of disabled people, as the ability-based concepts are not only a problem for disabled people but for all marginalized groups. As such, it is troubling that we found no relevant hits with intersectional pedagogy in the abstracts and the 70 full texts of articles.

Intersectional pedagogy teaches intersectionality across a wide variety of oppressions and aims to uncover invisible intersections. Given the well-known implicit, explicit, and unconscious bias people have in relation to disabled people [293] and the complexity around the identity understanding of disabled people, specific data and best practices are needed to cover the intersectionality problems disabled people face, including how disablism plays itself out around the intersectionality of disabled people. These data could be provided by the intersectional pedagogy literature.

Then, the intersectional pedagogy literature also has to engage with the biases and other problems disabled teachers of intersectional pedagogy might face given that disabled teachers are known to face biases in teaching other classes [146].

Teaching intersectional pedagogy must be able to consider that disabled people with the same body/mind characteristic might label that given characteristic differently and must be able to teach what language to use to describe disability and disablement and what a given language use means for intersectionality-based problems. Indeed, this is not trivial as the term disability is used for two very different discourses: one that focuses on the body/mind and how to define it, and the second one that focuses on the origin of the problem, the disablement (the body/mine, or society or both). Or, to give another example, the term neurodivergent is often used as an identifier, but terms such as cognitive divergent, mobility divergent, audi-divergent, or sensory divergent are not used. Intersectional pedagogy also must deal with the problem of hierarchies between different disabilities. This is not a simple task. Intersectional pedagogy has the challenge that disabled people and the data around them are often based on disabled people as a group although intersectionality-based problems play themselves out differently for different body/mind characteristics of disabled people and can cause different social barriers for different body/mind realities of disabled people. As it is noted, “ableism manifests differently depending on the nature of the disability” [302] (p. 1).

As such, studies are needed that look in depth at how to teach intersectional pedagogy in relation to disabled people, whereby this teaching should make use of intersectional-based concepts and ability judgment-based concepts.

It is stated that intersectional pedagogy is to teach intersectional self-determination skill of self-advocacy:

• Know self;
• Know needs and resources;
• Advocate to meet needs [72].

Data are needed for how intersectional pedagogy is to achieve this in relation to disabled people. This goal might be feasible, but it faces the barrier of literacy around disability issues often due to lack of data. It also faces the problem that many disabled people do not out themselves (they camouflage/mask) due to the negative consequences of outing themselves [257] and the problem that the only self-identifier available to students is a deficiency one (in order to be able to obtain accommodation), which leads to stigma and other negative consequences [303]. There is no ability identity security (that one can be at ease with one’s set of abilities) for disabled students [294]. Teaching these advocacy skills also might face the problem that disabled and non-disabled students internalized ableism (that one accepts the negative ability judgment) [91] and internalized disablism (that one accepts the negative lived reality, the social discrimination based on the negative ability judgment) [93,94,95,96].

So, to entice students to advocate for their needs and to be activists, one must find ways to eliminate the cost attached to outing oneself (for the ones that can hide) and to ascertain the existence of internalized ableism and disablism. We already outlined the danger of activist burnout due to, for example, disablism burnout [257]. As such, to teach the intersectional self-determination skill of self-advocacy, the teacher must find ways to decrease the danger of disablism burnout in the lives of their students and other barriers to activism that disabled people face. Furthermore, the teacher has to be an activist to rectify the lack of ability identity self-determination (the power to define one’s ability-based identity [77]) disabled students face as they have to accept a negative, deficiency framework of their ability-judged identity by default. And, the teacher must question the wording of demographic questions used for disabled people that assume a deficiency understanding of the ability-based identity of the disabled person. Some might agree with a negative assessment of one’s set of abilities, others (deaf culture and neurodivergent) do not. In the end, intersectional pedagogy must deal with the issues of people with many different disabilities with many different self-understandings of their “disabilities” and different lived realities intersecting with other non-disability identities and areas.

To gain a baseline understanding of what the views of disabled and non-disabled people in class are around disability (body/mind judgment-wise and social disablement-wise), we suggest a set of questions to give to students. We list two sets of questions in Appendix C; one set is worded to be answered by a disabled person, and one set is worded to be answered by people who do not see themselves as belonging to the group labeled as disabled.

For both (disabled and non-disabled people), our questions first focus on ascertaining the sentiment towards the phrases “disabled people” and “people with disabilities”.

The second set of questions focuses on the sentiment towards the body/mind characteristic, which makes the person being categorized as belonging to the disability group. Is that characteristic seen as an impairment (with the meaning of deficiency) or a variation of being? One can ask this in general or mention specific characteristics like being deaf, autistic, neurodiverse, and not walking for example.

If one asks people who identify as belonging to the disability group, one can ascertain also whether they have more than one characteristic seen as a disability and whether they see these different disabilities differently.

The third focus is about where the disablement originates from, whereby one can indicate the disablement, so the negative lived reality is caused by/originates in the body/mind characteristic, which makes one part of the disability group or in society, like the social barriers flagged in the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities [260] and the Accessibility Canada Act [261], or both. One can ask this in general and for specific characteristics such as deaf, autistic, neurodivergent, or not walking to ascertain whether the sentiment is different for different characteristics.

Finally, the fourth focus is to ascertain the views using the same questions but using characteristics that would normally not make a person be classified as belonging to the disability group, for example, cannot fly, does not have a cellphone, or cannot cook. We use the fourth focus because what abilities are required constantly changes, and as such, who is seen as ability body/mind impaired/deficient constantly changes.

Finally, there is an existing tool called the BIAS FREE framework (Building an Integrative Analytical System For Recognizing and Eliminating InEquities) developed by Margrit Eichler and Mary Anne Burke. This framework poses 20 questions that indicate biases that help maintain social hierarchies in three main sections: H: Maintaining and Existing Hierarchy; F: Failing to Examine Differences; and D: Using Double Standards. [304,305,306]. We suggest that the BIAS FREE framework is a useful tool for teaching intersectional pedagogy to see what students write for different marginalized groups and for which marginalized groups they lack the knowledge. If students have a big gap in one marginalized group, they might not have enough knowledge to cover that marginalized group within an intersectionality framework. Furthermore, one could use these questions also to interrogate intersectional realities such as intersectional conflict and use the 20 questions to unearth intersectionality-based problems.

5. Conclusions, Implications, and Further Research Opportunities

Our study found a lack of engagement with disabled people in the intersectionality-focused literature. The starting points in our study were the 34,830 abstracts that contained the term “intersectionality”; the 259,501 that contained the phrase “intersection of”; and the 11,653 abstracts that contained the 35 intersectionality-based concepts. The numbers for these abstracts that contained our disability terms were 753, 2058, and 274, respectively, reflecting 2.16%, 0.79%, and 2.35% of the starting point abstracts. We also found a lack of engagement with intersectional concepts in relation to disabled people and a lack of use of ability judgment-based concepts to further the intersectional analysis. The intersectional pedagogy literature did not engage with disabled people in the literature covered. Furthermore, our surveys found that the students indicated that they saw many of the social groups they could choose from as experiencing negative ability-based judgments reflected in the different ability terms. Our study suggests a need to engage in more depth with the intersectionality of disabled people and the usefulness of using ability judgment-based concepts as a lens to look at intersectionality problems. Our study also suggests the need to broaden the academic coverage of intersectional pedagogy to engage in depth with the intersectionality of disabled people.

As to academic implications, our findings suggest that there is a need for many academic studies to fill the gaps we found. However, this is not that easy given that disabled academics and disabled community members face many barriers to being knowledge producers and for their knowledge to be taken seriously and acted upon. Our data suggest also that there must be barriers for non-disabled people from marginalized groups and non-marginalized groups, which prevents them from choosing to work on the intersectionality of disabled people. Our data suggest that there is a need to better understand the gap we found and how to fix it. One could interview academics who work on the intersectionality of disabled people to obtain their views on the findings and the issues they face working on the topic.

Our survey questions could be used in other settings to see whether the results will be the same. One could also give a version of the survey questions where different disabilities are listed. One could also list different intersectionalities between disability terms and other marginalized identities to see whether the numbers will be different from the individual marginalized identities. The survey questions could ask for comments, so one obtains more data on why a given question was answered in a certain way. And, one could use the survey questions for semi-structured interviews and focus groups to obtain a deeper understanding of the topic.

One could also build intersectional case studies by generating different intersectionalities and then linking these to questions as to what that will mean in relation to different intersectionality concepts if one experiences certain negative ability judgments. Such case studies would deepen the discussions around ability judgment-based influences on intersectionality problems.

Our findings also have implications for education. The academic inquiry did not generate the data needed for teaching students about intersectionality related to disabled people. The missing data are needed for effective intersectional pedagogy teaching in relation to disabled people. If students are not exposed to the topic, it will not occur to many of them that this topic might need fixing or needing data. Exposing especially undergraduate students to the topic and data on the topic is essential, as they are potentially future researchers (academia-wise or as community-based scholars). If they are never exposed to the topic and the problems disabled people face, many will not make the connection that data are needed and that this topic of the intersectionality of disabled people could be a potential research topic.

Many ability-based exercises [103,307] could be used and new ones generated to increase the sensitivity of students to the impact of cultural dynamics reflected by the ability-based concepts and intersectionality-based concepts on disabled people. The ability survey reported on in this study could be used to link a student’s lived reality to other groups using ability- and intersectionality-based lived realities as overarching concepts. The BIAS FREE framework [304,306] (“Building an Integrative Analytical System For Recognizing and Eliminating InEquities”) focuses on unmasking social hierarchy, and its 20 analytical questions could be used as audit tools of any given discourse and document. It could be used to engage with intersectional bias [47,48,49,50,51,52,53] and have students come up with real-life examples fitting any of the analytical questions.

As to implications for policy making, our findings indicate that the current policy actions may lack the critical data necessary to effectively address and reduce the intersectionality-based problems disabled people experience, including ability judgment-based intersectionality problems. For example, the topic of ability obsolescence due to scientific and technological advancement (artificial intelligence, robotics, Internet of Things, and automatization) impacts the employability of different identities, including different disability-related identities, in different ways, which could lead to intersectional conflicts and intersectional invisibility. Indeed, the literature around the danger of technologies for the employment of people can already be classified to exhibit the intersectional invisibility of disabled people, as they are rarely mentioned as the ones losing their jobs in the literature that focuses on non-disabled people losing jobs.