The interrelationships between intersectionality, homelessness and social work are complicated and contested, as is the very notion of intersectionality itself (McKibbin et al., 2015). In this book I have argued that intersectionality is a new way of thinking and theorising about homelessness and social work. I have sought to contribute to social work knowledge by considering an intersectional social work approach to homelessness. This has been achieved by exploring literature and research on intersectionality, social work research, homelessness policy making, practitioner responses and service user perspectives By reflecting on my own Australian social work practice and research on homelessness spanning over two decades, I have illustrated diverse perspectives on home, service providers’ responses and service users’ experiences of homelessness.
The introductory chapter introduced the main concepts and arguments covered in this book, highlighting that intersecting power relations constitute social work research, social policy and practice responses to homelessness. In Chapter 2, intersectionality was explored in more depth from multiple perspectives using multidisciplinary literature. Chapter 3 examined how intersectionality has (or has not) been used in social work and homelessness research, highlighting numerous gaps in social work literature. I also analysed multidisciplinary literature and presented my own research on home, homelessness (and related areas such as domestic violence) and intersectionality. In Chapter 4 intersectional policy analysis approaches in multidisciplinary literature were outlined. Definitions of homelessness, legislation and service initiatives such as ‘Housing First’ in the USA, UK, Australia and the European Union were examined, using intersectional policy analysis questions. Chapter 5 discussed and reflected on social work practice responses to homelessness, using literature and research data from interviews with social workers in the field of homelessness, my reflexive commentary and a case study. In this chapter I advocated for social worker self-reflexivity and argued that social work responses to homelessness can be expanded through an intersectional social work approach. Such an approach would enable social workers to gain further insights into how they can promote practices aligned with their commitments to challenging social injustice and human rights violations (Murphy et al., 2009). Chapter 6 highlighted the diversity of homelessness by documenting research on the ‘voices’ and experiences of service users and people affected by homelessness. I emphasised the intersectional complexities in people’s lives, in the context of experiencing homelessness, by exploring at least two or more ‘categories of oppression’ (Hulko, 2015, p. 71). In this book I have argued that an intersectional social work approach can provide new ways of moving forward, by incorporating inclusive and participatory service user-led research, to inform social work policy and practice in the area of homelessness.
The contents of this book are consistent with the aims of intersectionality. I acknowledged and centred the voices of people most affected by homelessness (Hulko, 2015); made visible intersecting diversities (Dhamoon, 2011) in the area of homelessness; was ‘majority inclusive’ by examining social workers’ own privileges (Christensen and Jensen, 2012); explored the complexities of oppressive and privileging processes (and identities) in literature (Lykke, 2010); demonstrated how social inequalities and injustices that contribute to homelessness manifest in interconnected domains of power relations (Thornton Dill and Zambrana, 2009; Thornton Dill and Kohlman, 2012); and promoted social justice and social change consistent with the ethics of social work (Murphy et al., 2009). I have struggled with having to limit the scope of this book to focusing only on some intersections, particularly gender, ethnicity/race, sexuality, class and age, which resonate with critiques of intersectionality itself. However, I have argued that the complexities of this book distinguish it from other work in the fields of social work and homelessness.
The intersectional social work approach that I have proposed is consistent with social work ethics and values about social change, and working to upholding social justice and human rights (Murphy et al., 2009). There are debates, though, in the field of intersectionality, being led by US and European scholars, about the relative merits of constructionist or systemic approaches to intersectionality (Prins, 2006, p. 277). As outlined in Chapter 2, I have acknowledged ontological differences in the conceptualisation of intersectionality between systemic, structural and post-constructionist/post-structural theorising. I have argued that diverse intersectional approaches, including McCall’s (2005) anti-categorical, intra-categorical and inter-categorical dimensions, and Lykke’s (2010) more social constructionist approach, can contribute to widening understandings of homelessness and social work responses to it. I have suggested that different intersectional approaches can be relevant to social work and homelessness, depending on the purpose of the research project, policy or practice intervention.
My intersectional social work approach has transcended previous literature in homelessness that examined dynamic interactions between macro structures (such as changes to housing and labour markets), and the micro processes that increase an individual’s vulnerability to homelessness. The intersectional approach in this book broadened structural and individual concerns, to focus on how multiple power relations intersect, to both privilege and oppress individuals and community groups differently. This approach can enable social workers to highlight simplistic, homogenous constructions of homelessness that limit how homelessness is thought about. My conceptualisation of intersectionality has aligned with understandings in literature that unequal power relations are influenced by intersecting social structures, organisations and social institutions, as well as cultural and discursive representations of social problems (Winker and Degele, 2011). I also drew on poststructuralist ontologies to explore homeless and social work subjectivities, as being an effect of the power of language and discourse (McKibbin et al., 2015, p. 101).
This intersectional social work approach has promoted reflexivity, which involved reflecting on my own positions and social locations, personally and professionally, as an academic, researcher and practitioner. The social justice assumptions that underpin intersectionality make it particularly useful for examining social work research, policy, practice and education (Murphy et al., 2009). As the production of knowledge in academia has been contained within normative, predominantly white, masculine and middle-class institutionalised discourses and structures (Thornton-Dill and Kohlman, 2012), this has raised questions about whose values, traditions, practices and knowledges are being privileged in the teaching of social work (Roberts and Smith, 2002; Holtzhausen, 2011). These dilemmas are made visible through a reflexive, intersectional analysis of social work responses to homelessness.
Throughout this book I argued that intersectionality is a concept and an approach that is malleable and flexible enough to adapt to the increasingly diversifying ‘new’ demographics of homelessness across the USA, UK, Australia and the EU. The approach extends social work (and other professionals’) understandings about the depth and breadth of the historical, social, political and cultural experiences of our client groups (Murphy et al., 2009, p. 1). Aligned with Murphy et al. (2009, p. 87), I argued that intersectionality is a paradigm shift for social work, by focusing on how social inequalities can be maintained through oppressive and privileging practices, within complex contexts and shifting local and global demographics and dynamics particularly pertinent in the changing field of homelessness. Therefore, I also noted that homelessness and social work responses to it have shifted over time and can be reinterpreted in different local and global contexts.
In this book I intended to move beyond focusing on ‘individualized politics’ (Nixon and Humphreys, 2010), and interrelating identity categories, to exploring how social work responses to homelessness are processes that are socially located. As such, my intersectional approach interrogated social work research, analysed policy-making processes, reflected on social worker’s diverse social locations and unpacked client-worker power relations, by exploring lived experiences. This approach and analysis contributed to making visible intersecting social inequalities and provided areas for future social work research and advocacy. I have argued that central to social work’s mission for social justice and social change is the questioning of representations of social problems in institutionalised social processes, such as research and policy making, which involves emphasising how inequalities intersect.
As outlined in Chapter 3, I found that there was a dearth of social work research literature on homelessness and intersectionality. I posited that an intersectional approach complicated social work and homelessness research, by enabling us to focus on the heterogeneity of people’s lives, including the lives of ‘homeless people’ and social workers, without disregarding the material reality of homelessness. By employing Winker and Degele’s (2011) multilayered intersectional analysis, I noted that social workers can research the relationships between social structures, constructions of identities and symbolic representations of social issues. However, social work research, policy and practice are often constructed in relation to symbolic public representations of social work and homelessness, such as in the media. This was evident when I examined print media representations of homelessness that framed constructions of homelessness as a social problem to be ‘fixed’ by service providers such as social workers (Zufferey, 2014). Media coverage of social issues such as homelessness has tended to fix homeless and housed identities (Hodgetts et al., 2006, p. 498), and construct simplistic solutions to the issue. The intersectional social work approach has challenged simplistic policy responses to and media representations of homelessness and social work.
This book illustrated how social work research, policy and practice are diverse, with multiple understandings of and responses to homelessness. Consistent with Hulko’s (2015) research, I have adopted an intersectional approach to social work research, and contributed to promoting new research paradigms and practices that involved being reflexive, collaborative and participatory, sampling for diversity, asking questions about (intersecting) social locations, facilitating voice, such as through creative use of methods (such as using visual artefacts, see Zufferey and Rowntree, 2014), and disseminating findings with a view to social change.
As outlined in Chapter 4, I examined the complexities of policy making by using intersectional policy analysis frameworks such as Hankivsky’s (2012) Intersectionality-Based Policy Analysis (IBPA). Another particularly useful policy analysis framework was Bacchi’s (2009) ‘What’s the problem represented to be?’ (WPR). This policy analysis framework provided a new and different approach to analysing how ‘governing’ takes place, through questioning the solutions proposed to social problems (such as homelessness) in policy documents, drawing out implications for those who are ‘governed’ (Bacchi, 2009, p. vii). Drawing on the WPR framework, I have previously examined print media discourses of homelessness (Zufferey, 2014). Intersectionality-Based Policy Analysis (IBPA) partly incorporates Bacchi’s WPR approach and has been used for analysing health and public policy (Hankivsky et al., 2014). I argued that the IBPA can also provide for a new way of analysing homelessness policies by exploring whether a policy has transformed thinking about ‘relations and structures of power and inequity’ (Hankivsky, 2012, pp. 40–42). When I examined definitions of homelessness and statutory legislation in the USA, UK, Australia and Europe, as well as Housing First initiatives, I found that legislation and policies have partly transformed social work thinking about homelessness but have failed to intersect multiple social discriminations. Future areas for policy advocacy were identified, which included incorporating diverse understandings of homelessness that move beyond housing-based policy definitions of homelessness (Zufferey and Chung, 2015).
I have argued that an intersectional approach to policy making addresses intersecting power relations, discriminatory practices and social inequalities contributing to homelessness. This approach expands on current homelessness advocacy that makes visible: few housing options, the lack of accessible and safe housing, limited access to services such as income security, employment, education and health care, and recognising [homeless people’s] right to be recognised ‘as citizens of dignity and worth equal to that of other citizens’ (Coleman, 2012, p. 278). This advocacy has included focusing on the individual-structural dynamics of homelessness (Johnson et al., 2015). In this book, I have argued that an intersectional policy approach (Parken, 2010; Hankivsky and Cormier, 2011) to homelessness incorporates intersecting diversities and inequalities, while promoting human rights initiatives in social policy, which broadens theorising about macro (structural) as well as micro (everyday) social change.
In Chapter 5, I contended that an intersectional social work approach provides new possibilities for reflecting on and responding to homelessness. Social work is socially located and positioned within organisational contexts and social institutions that are unequal, multilayered, dynamic and complex. Within these social and organisational contexts, social workers embody institutionalised gendered, classed, heteronormative and racialised practices. I have argued that intersectional approaches invite social workers to engage in reflexive practices that acknowledge their own intersecting privileges (and oppressions) and embodied subjectivities. Further, by attending to intersecting social inequalities that contribute to homelessness, social workers can complement the actions of differently positioned advocates for homelessness (such as service users), creating possibilities for ‘coalitional activism and social change’ (Jones, 2010, p. 122).
My argument is that social workers are involved in maintaining social inequalities because they are often employed in organisations and social institutions that have institutionalised heteronormative, gendered, classed, racialised and xenophobic practices. However, they are also involved in resisting discriminatory practices and advocating for social change. That is, social workers can be involved in constructing as well as challenging ‘one size fits all’ policy and practice responses to homelessness, that are often criticised by people who experience homelessness, for not being diverse, inclusive and heterogeneous enough (Zufferey and Kerr, 2004). I posited that an intersectional analysis can deconstruct and make visible social work practices and processes that contribute to maintaining (and resisting) intersecting social inequalities. This exploration can also highlight the diverse effects of social work practices on people who experience homelessness. Overall, I have argued that an intersectional approach can contribute to social workers advocating for new ways of thinking about social work research, policy and practice in the field of homelessness.
In summary, homelessness and social work in different countries are influenced by differing legislation, political systems, welfare states, understandings of social work and homelessness. This book cannot cover all background contexts, areas and countries. I have limited the discussion to examining social work and research trends in homelessness in the contexts of noteworthy literature from Australia, UK, Canada, USA and the European Union. Below I list what I see as the key points when considering an intersectional social work approach in the field of homelessness in these Western contexts:
1Social workers themselves are not exempt from the subjectifying practices and intersecting inequalities that function to continue to oppress and also privilege certain members of society. However, intersecting influences that oppress or privilege are contextual and dynamic in their effects and continue to shift and change over time and place.
2Historical social work practices and homogenous constructions of ‘the homeless experience’ cannot be ignored when examining how intersecting inequalities influence a socially constructed problem such as homelessness. However, whilst sexism, racism, classism, heterosexism and ‘third worldism’ continue to exist and produce unequal power relations, the effects of these on human experiences constantly change and are constituted through different political, social, economic and cultural contexts.
3Diverse perspectives on intersectionality are inevitable and provide for its flexibility. Different ‘ways of doing’ intersectionality can be incorporated into social work research designs and paradigms, multiple levels of social work practice (such as micro, mezzo and macro) and social policy development and analysis. An intersectional social work approach is more inclusive of the complexity and diversity of homelessness, compared to traditional social work approaches that tend to privilege one pre-selected social inequality (such as class, gender or race), and ‘silo’ responses in social work research, social policy and ‘frontline’ practice.
4Material experiences and social constructions of Indigeneity, race, class, gender, age, sexuality, (dis)ability, nationalism, social and geographical locations intersect to constitute the subjectivities of both social workers and service users (including people who experience homelessness). These institutionalised material practices, discursive representations and social constructions have implications for how social workers understand and respond to homelessness in research, policy and practice. However, given that the social work profession has a commitment to influencing social change and promoting social justice, an intersectional social work approach would include challenging discriminatory processes and intersecting social inequalities that disadvantage particular population groups, such as people who experience homelessness.
This book has acknowledged that social work responses to homelessness are historically and socially constructed within, for example, intersecting classed, gendered and racialised processes. Social work research, policy and practice are influenced by social worker’s own intersecting social locations, and the social work profession itself is affected by being predominantly white, middle-class, heteronormative and gendered. Furthermore, social work has been constructed within particular historical values about class, gender, family, work, age and sexuality (Abrams, 2000; Cree, 2002, p. 280) that continue to influence contemporary practices. In this book, I have argued for an intersectional social work approach that can make visible intersecting power relations that shape the subjectivities of people who experience homelessness, as well as the social work research, policy and practice processes. By attending carefully to these processes, I have argued that an intersectional social work approach can enable social workers to broaden their critical analysis and advocacy responses to homelessness. However, I would also like to acknowledge that an intersectional social work approach can be applied to other fields of research, policy and practice, besides homelessness. My hope for the future is that this intersectional social work approach can be further developed and expanded on by other scholars, to contribute to future possibilities for social work, that extend within and beyond the profession.
References
Abrams, L.S. (2000). Guardians of virtue: The social reformers and the ‘girl problem’, 1890–1920. Social Services Review, 74(3), 436–452.
Bacchi, C. (2009). Analysing policy: What’s the problem represented to be? Sydney: Pearson.
Christensen, A. and Jensen, S. (2012). Doing intersectional analysis: Methodological implications for qualitative research. Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research, 20(2), 109–125.
Coleman, A. (2012). Context, context, context: A commentary on responding to people sleeping rough: Dilemmas and opportunities for social work (Parsell, 2011). Australian Social Work, 65(2), 274–279.
Cree, V.E. (2002). Social work and society. (pp. 275–287). In M. Davies (Ed.). Blackwell companion to social work (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Dhamoon, R. (2011). Considerations on mainstreaming intersectionality. Political Research Quarterly, 64(1), 230–243.
Hankivsky, O. (Ed.). (2012). An intersectionality-based policy analysis framework. Vancouver, BC: Institute for Intersectionality Research and Policy, Simon Fraser University.
Hankivsky, O. and Cormier, R. (2011). Intersectionality and public policy: Some lessons from existing models. Political Research Quarterly, 64(1), 217–229.
Hankivsky, O., Grace, D., Hunting, G., Giesbrecht, M., Fridkin, A., Rudrum, S., Ferlatte, O. and Clark, N. (2014). An intersectionality-based policy analysis framework: Critical reflections on a methodology for advancing equity. International Journal for Equity in Health, 13(119). Accessed 4 May 2016. DOI: 10.1186/s12939-014-0119-x.
Hodgetts, D., Hodgetts, A. and Radley, A. (2006). Life in the shadow of the media: Imaging street homelessness in London. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 9, 497–516.
Holtzhausen, L. (2011). When values collide: Finding common ground for social work education in the United Arab Emirates. International Social Work, 54(2), 191–208.
Hulko, W. (2015). Operationalizing intersectionality in feminist social work research: Reflections and techniques from research with equity-seeking groups. (pp. 69–89). In S. Wahab, B. Anderson-Nathe and C. Gringeri (Eds). Feminisms in social work research. New York, NY: Routledge.
Johnson, G., Scutella, R., Tseng, Y. and Wood, G. (2015). Entries and exits from homelessness: A dynamic analysis of the relationship between structural conditions and individual characteristics. AHURI Final Report No. 248. Melbourne, Vic: Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute. Accessed 12 May 2016. www.ahuri.edu.au/publications/projects/p53042.
Jones, R.G. (2010). Putting privilege into practice through ‘intersectional reflexivity’: Ruminations, interventions, and possibilities. Faculty Research and Creative Activity. Paper 3. Accessed 12 May 2016. http://thekeep.eiu.edu/commstudies_fac/3.
Lykke, N. (2010). Feminist studies: A guide to intersectional theory, methodology, and writing. New York, NY: Routledge.
McCall, L. (2005). The complexity of intersectionality. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 30(3), 1771–1800.
McKibbin, G., Duncan, R., Hamilton, B., Cathy Humphreys, C. and Kellett, C. (2015). The intersectional turn in feminist theory: A response to Carbin and Edenheim (2013). European Journal of Women’s Studies, 22(1), 99–103.
Murphy, Y., Hunt, V., Zajicek, A.M., Norris, A.N. and Hamilton, L. (2009). Incorporating intersectionality in social work practice, research, policy, and education. Washington, DC: NASW Press.
Nixon, J. and Humphreys, C. (2010). Marshalling the evidence: Using intersectionality in the domestic violence frame. Social Politics, 17(2), 137–158.
Parken, A. (2010). A multi-strand approach to promoting equality and human rights in policymaking. Policy and Politics, 38(1), 79–99.
Prins, B. (2006). Narrative accounts of origins: A blind spot in the intersectional approach. European Journal of Women’s Studies. Special Issue on Intersectionality, 13(3), 277–290.
Roberts, T.L. and Smith, L.A. (2002). The illusion of inclusion: An analysis of approaches to diversity within predominantly white schools of social work. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 22(3), 189–211.
Thornton Dill, B. and Kohlman, M.H. (2012). Intersectionality. (pp. 154–171). In S. Hesse-Biber (Ed.). Handbook of feminist research. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Thornton Dill, B. and Zambrana, R.E. (2009). Emerging intersections: Race, class, and gender in theory, policy, and practice. Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Winker, G. and Degele, N. (2011). Intersectionality as multi-level analysis: Dealing with social inequality. European Journal of Women’s Studies, 18(1), 51–66.
Zufferey, C. (2014). Questioning representations of homelessness in the Australian print media. Australian Social Work, 67(4), 525–536.
Zufferey, C. and Chung, D. (2015). ‘Red dust homelessness’: housing, home and homelessness in remote Australia. Journal of Rural Studies, 41, 13–22.
Zufferey, C. and Kerr, L. (2004). Identity and everyday experiences of homelessness: Some implications for social work. Australian Social Work, 57(4), 343–353.
Zufferey, C. and Rowntree, M. (2014). Finding your community wherever you go? Exploring how a group of women who identify as lesbian embody and imagine ‘home’. The Australian Sociological Association (TASA) Conference, University of South Australia, 24–27 November, Adelaide.