Cross-sectional survey highlights experiential disparities for racialized nursing students, indicating ethical responsibility in recruitment processes.
Background Despite stated commitments to equity, nursing education environments remain sites of pervasive everyday discrimination, especially for students with intersecting marginalized identities. Purpose This study aimed to examine patterns of everyday discrimination among undergraduate nursing students using an intersectional lens, with particular attention to how experiences vary across overlapping axes of social identity and structural vulnerability. Method A cross-sectional survey of 260 undergraduate nursing students was conducted at a large Canadian university. Everyday discrimination was measured using the Everyday Discrimination Scale (EDS), alongside sociodemographic variables related to race, gender, disability, financial insecurity, and English language status. Data were analyzed using ANOVA and factorial interaction models, with QuantCrit principles informing variable construction, modeling, and interpretation. Results Everyday discrimination was commonly reported and significantly higher among students identifying as racialized, especially those born in Africa, financially insecure, or with a disability. Interaction effects revealed that students at the intersection of multiple marginalized identities, particularly women with disabilities or racialized students with financial insecurity—reported the highest levels of discrimination. Conclusion Findings reveal that discrimination is structurally patterned and intensifies at the intersections of race, class, gender, migration, and disability. Through our intersectional and QuantCrit lens, this study advances how inequities are reproduced in Canadian nursing programs and raises urgent questions about ethics, responsibility, and institutional accountability, particularly in relation to the recruitment and support of racialized, international, economically disadvantaged students.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bewer et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: