Examining intersectionality is a very complex issue, our contribution is rather modest: we show preliminary quantitative evidence of a positive intersectional effect of being a woman/girl and having a personal/family immigration background on levels of political interest.
Interesting. As you state in your discussion: native women show biggest deviation from model where political interest is independent of gender and immigration background. So, why frame this as a positive intersectional effect of being woman with migration background?
Thank you for your comment. We frame it as positive because it implies an independent positive effect beyond the sum of immigration background and being a woman. That does not need to mean that they are the most interested in politics, that is always relative to which group you compare to.
Traditional explanations for women's lower interest in politics would predict even lower interest in women with an immigration background (your hypothesis H1a). The data reject that, which you seem to interpret as evidence for H1b, the predicted negative effect is offset by a positive effect.
Couldn't it be equally valid to use this data to reject the traditional explanations for low interest in politics in adolescent women? In other words the finding that needs to be explained is not low interest for adolescent women in general but for native, adolescent women in particular.
What I find interesting is that adolescent women seem to choose part-time employment more than men. I have a suspicion that the this gender difference is larger between native men and women than between men and women with an immigrant background as it is in political interest.
Comments