Deeper than Wordplay: A Systematic Review of Critical Quantitative Approaches in Education Research (2007–2021)

IF 8.3 1区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Review of Educational Research Pub Date : 2023-02-13 DOI:10.3102/00346543221130017
Lolita A. Tabron, Amanda K. Thomas
{"title":"Deeper than Wordplay: A Systematic Review of Critical Quantitative Approaches in Education Research (2007–2021)","authors":"Lolita A. Tabron, Amanda K. Thomas","doi":"10.3102/00346543221130017","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Although the critical research cannon is often associated with qualitative scholars, there is a growing number of critical scholars who are refusing positivist-informed quantitative analyses. However, as a growing number of education scholars engaged in critical approaches to quantitative inquiry, instances of conflation began to surface. We understood this conflation as the interchangeable use of the terms quantitative criticalism, QuantCrit, and critical quantitative throughout the literature and even within the same chapter or article. The purpose of our systematic literature review is twofold: (a) to understand how critical approaches to quantitative inquiry emerged as a new paradigm within quantitative methods and (b) whether there is any distinction between quantitative criticalism, QuantCrit, and critical quantitative inquiries or simply interchangeable wordplay. We share how critical quantitative approaches are definite shifts within the quantitative research paradigm, highlight relevant assumptions, and share strategies and future directions for applied practice in this emergent field.","PeriodicalId":21145,"journal":{"name":"Review of Educational Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":8.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Review of Educational Research","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543221130017","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Although the critical research cannon is often associated with qualitative scholars, there is a growing number of critical scholars who are refusing positivist-informed quantitative analyses. However, as a growing number of education scholars engaged in critical approaches to quantitative inquiry, instances of conflation began to surface. We understood this conflation as the interchangeable use of the terms quantitative criticalism, QuantCrit, and critical quantitative throughout the literature and even within the same chapter or article. The purpose of our systematic literature review is twofold: (a) to understand how critical approaches to quantitative inquiry emerged as a new paradigm within quantitative methods and (b) whether there is any distinction between quantitative criticalism, QuantCrit, and critical quantitative inquiries or simply interchangeable wordplay. We share how critical quantitative approaches are definite shifts within the quantitative research paradigm, highlight relevant assumptions, and share strategies and future directions for applied practice in this emergent field.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
比文字游戏更深刻:教育研究中关键定量方法的系统回顾(2007-2021)
尽管批判性研究的大炮通常与定性学者联系在一起,但越来越多的批判性学者拒绝实证主义的定量分析。然而,随着越来越多的教育学者从事定量调查的批判性方法,合并的实例开始浮出水面。我们把这种合并理解为在整个文献中,甚至在同一章或文章中,定量批评、定量批评和批判定量这几个术语的可互换使用。我们系统性文献综述的目的有两个:(a)了解定量研究的批判性方法是如何在定量方法中成为一种新范式的;(b)定量批评、定量批判和批判性定量研究之间是否存在任何区别,或者只是可互换的文字游戏。我们分享了关键的定量方法是如何在定量研究范式中明确转变的,强调了相关的假设,并分享了在这个新兴领域应用实践的策略和未来方向。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Review of Educational Research
Review of Educational Research EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
24.10
自引率
2.70%
发文量
28
期刊介绍: The Review of Educational Research (RER), a quarterly publication initiated in 1931 with approximately 640 pages per volume year, is dedicated to presenting critical, integrative reviews of research literature relevant to education. These reviews encompass conceptualizations, interpretations, and syntheses of scholarly work across fields broadly pertinent to education and educational research. Welcoming submissions from any discipline, RER encourages research reviews in psychology, sociology, history, philosophy, political science, economics, computer science, statistics, anthropology, and biology, provided the review addresses educational issues. While original empirical research is not published independently, RER incorporates it within broader integrative reviews. The journal may occasionally feature solicited, rigorously refereed analytic reviews of special topics, especially from disciplines underrepresented in educational research.
期刊最新文献
Teachers’ Beliefs About Language Diversity and Multilingual Learners: A Systematic Review of the Literature Studying the Effectiveness of Team Teaching: A Systematic Review on the Conceptual and Methodological Credibility of Experimental Studies Leveraging Physical Activities to Support Learning for Young People via Technologies: An Examination of Educational Practices Across the Field Robot-Assisted Language Learning: A Meta-Analysis Does Aid Matter? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Grant Aid on College Student Outcomes
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1