Summer 2026 Issue

Intersectionality: What Does Intersectional Social Work Practice Really Mean?
By Rose C. B. Singh, MSW, RSW; Andrea Murray-Lichtman, PhD, MSW, LCSW; Lamont D. Simmons, MSW, EdD; Mbita Mbao, PhD, LICSW; Lisa Johnson, MSW, PhD; and Elspeth Slayter, MSW, MA, PhD
Social Work Today
Vol. 26 No. 3 P. 28

Often, social workers talk about how they engage in intersectional social work practice. We wonder, what do they really mean by that? Intersectionality, a term coined by Kimberlé Crenshaw1, is also rooted in the work of Anna J. Cooper, W.E.B. Du Bois, Patricia Hill Collins, and additional Black and racialized feminist activists, writers, and critical race scholars. As Collins and Bilge describe, intersectionality is both an “analytic tool” as well as a “way of understanding and analyzing the complexity in the world, in people, and in human experience.”1 Intersectionality considers “social inequality, power, relationality, social context, complexity, and social justice.” 1 We cannot let “intersectionality” become a buzzword without meaning, it is too important of a concept and praxis for the social work profession.

When asked to give an example of intersectional practice, social workers might not be able to offer one beyond “recognizing” the social identities of the clients or consumers they are working with. For example, one social worker recently shared with one author, “Well, I wrote in my case notes that my client is a Black person who identifies as disabled.” While this is a great step in recognizing social identities as part of person-centered practice, it is only a first step, and really only a half step. Let’s think about what the intersectionality concept can ideally look like during client engagement and assessment work.

Once we recognize the multiple, intersecting identities that people hold, we have to infuse this into the mindset we use in how we approach engaging and assessing our clients. Johnson et al refer to this as the “preengagement” stage of practice.1 Preengagement is a crucial phase in intersectional practice, where the practitioner engages in critical self-reflection and preparation before meeting the client. It involves examining one’s own biases, privileges, and positionality within systems of oppression, while simultaneously conducting preliminary research to challenge cultural imperialism and acknowledge the limitations of one’s knowledge about any given social identity. The goal of this phase is to assess the systemic context and ensure the subsequent client engagement is ethically grounded, respectful, and client led.

Let’s go back to the example of the Black disabled client mentioned above. Traditionally, “cultural competence” was encouraged in understanding how each social identity, such as how accessible a community is or what experiences of racism a client faces. Using an intersectional lens means learning about what it is like to live in the world as both Black and disabled at the same time. In practice, this means employing the newer concept of “critical cultural competence,” a dynamic and action-oriented evolution of traditional cultural competence that goes beyond mere awareness.1 This framework calls on social workers to engage in high-level analysis of how culture, diversity, and power dynamics intersect, particularly within the context of disability and systemic ableism. Critical cultural competence focuses on the social worker’s ability to conduct change-inducing analyses that confront structural oppression, rather than simply understanding individual cultural differences. Ultimately, it calls for ongoing self-reflection and utilizing their insights to drive intersectional action across micro, mezzo, and macro practice. Gibson and Mistry highlight the importance of an intersectional and critically reflective approach when supporting men with disabilities transitioning to adulthood, urging practitioners to move beyond a single-issue focus on disability through “holistic assessment” that considers multiple, interwoven identities.2 They argue that critical reflection is necessary to challenge ableist and gendered assumptions about independence and adulthood, and to create programs that validate diverse life paths for people with significant support needs.

Let us look at a more robust example of what intersectional practice can look like—knowing that there is not one single recipe for how we engage in this work (case modified from Johnson et al).1

Preengagement: A social worker at a rural health center, Jayla, grounds herself by conducting preparatory work before the first virtual meeting with Rhonda, who is noted in the referral as a Black woman with autism. This preparation involves consulting literature to gain a more informed perspective on the intersection of race, disability, and mental health services in rural communities. She also reflects on her upbringing as a white woman living in a household where one person used derogatory terms for Black people. This step demonstrates Jayla’s effort to mitigate her own biases and knowledge limitations.

Engagement: During the initial telehealth session, Jayla aims to “start where the client is” by asking Rhonda to share about herself beyond the case file and what she would like to work on. Crucially, Jayla models an antioppressive approach by acknowledging the power differential and her differing social identities (white, nondisabled) compared with Rhonda. She tells Rhonda that she recognizes there may be things she doesn’t understand and that she is open to being corrected or pointed in the right direction. Rhonda responds positively by sharing her self-identity as a Black nonbinary person who does not like the term “African American” and has embraced her autism as being part of a cultural group. Leaning into the conversation, Jayla learns that Rhonda is actively involved in the Autistic Self Advocacy Network and the Autism pride movement, much to the chagrin of her family.

Assessment: For Rhonda, the assessment phase, guided by intersectionality, requires Jayla to move beyond a focus on individual deficits towards centering Rhonda’s unique, self-defined narrative as a Black, autistic person. This means actively assessing how her experiences with systems like employment or health care are shaped by the combined, cumulative impact of both ableism and racism. Jayla must analyze the presenting problems as a result of socially constructed barriers—such as inaccessible, white-centric institutional norms—that disproportionately oppress Rhonda, ensuring the problem is correctly located in the system, not the client. Jayla notices that Rhonda’s embrace of autism pride causes consternation in her family. Digging deeper, she reads Sami Schalk’s Black Disability Politics and learns about a critical tension within the Black community regarding disability identity.3 On one hand, many Black individuals are reluctant to claim the label, viewing disability as a source of danger due to its historical use as a tool of systemic oppression, policing, and medical abuse rooted in racism and ableism. This view often limits disability recognition to those receiving scarce state aid, framing it as a private, hidden misfortune. On the other hand, the book emphasizes a movement that claims disability as a political identity and a source of strength, recognizing that ableism and racism are inextricably linked. This liberatory view sees disability as a frequent consequence of systemic violence and uses this identity to build community, demand structural change, and engage in antioppressive action for collective liberation. Jayla makes a note that this will need to be picked up in sessions as the therapeutic work moves forward. Finally, Jayla’s assessment must prioritize identifying Rhonda’s intersectional strengths, such as the empowerment, knowledge, and pride she gains from her affiliation with groups like the Autistic Self Advocacy Network, and her love of two role models, Black disabled activists Vilissa Thompson and Leroy Moore, valuing these community ties as essential resources for change.

Jayla’s case demonstrates what intersectionality in action looks like. The work with Rhonda was not random, but an intentional and an ongoing process that can be broken down into four connected steps that can be taken to meaningfully implement intersectional practice on a day-to-day basis:

1. Conduct holistic assessments to look beyond disability, consider how race, gender, class, etc, shape your client’s lived experience.4

2. Practice intentional critical reflection about self and assumptions/biases/beliefs/behaviors to determine your understanding of adulthood and success might be shaped by ableist or gendered norms, for example.

3. Self-educate about your client’s social identity groups, keeping an open mind about learning from clients above all as the expert in their own lives. Read, listen, and reflect.

4. Open up possibilities for connection, growth and progress both personally and professionally.

As Johnson, et al’s model indicates, intersectionality remains an essential framework for understanding the layered and nuanced realities of human experience with disability and systemic oppression.1 As practitioners, scholars, and advocates, upholding intersectionality challenges us to move beyond individual stories and toward dismantling the systemic barriers that reproduce oppression. Ultimately, embedding intersectionality in social work with disability communities strengthens our ability to create meaningful, just, and collective liberation alongside disability communities.

— Rose C. B. Singh, MSW, RSW, is a social work practitioner, educator, and PhD candidate in Canada.

— Andrea Murray-Lichtman, PhD, MSW, LCSW, is a clinical professor and associate dean of MSW education at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

— Lamont D. Simmons, MSW, EdD, is an associate professor of social work focused on equity, persistence, and justice.

— Mbita Mbao, PhD, LICSW, is an assistant professor at Salem State University’s School of Social Work, specializing in research on aging and disability, peer support systems, and immigrant health outcomes.

— Lisa Johnson, MSW, PhD, is a professor in the School of Social Work at Salem State University.

— Elspeth Slayter, MSW, MA, PhD, is a professor emerita at the School of Social Work at Salem State University where she coordinates the certificate program in Equity-MInded Practice.

References
1. Johnson L, Singh RCB, Slayter E. A model for social work practice with disability communities: connecting critical cultural competence, intersectionality and anti-oppressive practice. In: Slayter E, Johnson L, eds. Social Work Practice and Disability Communities: An Intersectional Anti-Oppressive Approach. ROTEL (Remixing Open Textbooks with an Equity Lens) Project; 2024. https://rotel.pressbooks.pub/disabilitysocialwork/chapter/chapter-2/

2. Gibson BE, Mistry B, Smith B, et al. Becoming men: gender, disability, and transitioning to adulthood. Health (London). 2014;8(1):95-114.

3. Schalk S. Black Disability Politics. Duke University Press; 2022.

4. Davis A, Gourdine R. Intersectionality and social security age-18 redetermination: reducing the stress and trauma of transition for Black transition-age youth with disabilities. Child Adolesc Social Work J. 2023;40(4):513-523.