The Coalitional Promises and Pitfalls of Intersectionality in University’s Equality Policies: An Explorative Case Study

Coalitions play a pivotal role in the realization of intersectionality’s ambitions, especially as a strategy to mobilize multiple claims in movements around shared political interests (Christoffersen, 2024; Cole, 2008). The coalitional promise of intersectionality (Carastathis, 2016) posits that as intersectionality advocates for the recognition of differences instead of essentializing identity groups’ needs, it can facilitate the articulation and negotiation of multiple, intersecting claims that remain overlooked otherwise. In this article, we draw on the idea of this promise to explore the role of coalition-building in organizational policymaking processes, analyzing the way it can support achieving intersectionality’s ambitions as well as its limitations. This focus on organizational policies is crucial because much of the existing literature linking intersectionality with coalition-building concentrates on the analysis of social movements addressing societal challenges, leaving its role in organizations overlooked. This lack of attention occurs despite the recent increasing institutional pressure for organizations such as universities to incorporate intersectionality into their policies, and increasing knowledge and academic activism on intersectional issues. Our findings are based on an explorative, in-depth case study of a large public university in Southern Europe. This case was selected as the organization has taken considerable steps in addressing intersecting inequalities, especially on gender, LGBTQ+, and disability, and includes multiple governance structures that advance the collaboration between different stakeholders. We draw on 20 semi-structured interviews with stakeholders involved in designing, governing, and implementing these policies and/or affected by these policies, an analysis of 20 institutional documents, and multiple on-site observations. The inductive analysis demonstrates the coalitional promises of intersectionality through three key practices: (1) collaborative negotiation in the governance phase (2), shared commitment to justice in the design phase, and (3) strategic alliances in the implementation phase. First, collaborative negotiation is facilitated through a centralized governance structure, led by the EDI office. This brings multiple stakeholders with dissimilar functions and expertise on gender, race, and disability together to share their expertise and synergize ideas to better address intersecting inequalities. Second, a shared commitment to justice is enhanced by the explicit mention of intersectionality and equity in the design of all organizational strategies, endorsed by management and recognizing a shared responsibility in addressing inequalities. Third, strategic alliances are formed through close collaboration between the EDI office, the government, and grassroots organizations to ensure support and resources for implementing intersectional approaches in research practices and awareness-raising campaigns. Despite these synergizing efforts, the analysis also reveals coalitional pitfalls. Power imbalances through insufficient and unequal resourcing among EDI committees can lead to contradicting interpretations of the effectiveness of the policies and stakeholder fatigue of some groups to do coalitional work without experiencing any effects. This article provides an understanding of how coalitions can help unite otherwise fragmented needs and claims, giving voice to demands into the policies that might otherwise remain invisible due to their intersectional nature. It also shows how practices can support aligning different claims but also how certain practices can hamper coalition-building and lead to pitfalls that need to be overcome.