Pub Date : 2022-03-01DOI: 10.3102/0091732X221089947
A. Whitaker, Gregory C. Wolniak
This chapter presents a broad interdisciplinary literature review linking artists’ economic precarity and need for but resistance to entrepreneurial skills, alongside colonial histories, structural racism, and hierarchies of taste in arts organizations. These themes are complemented empirically by engaging data from the Strategic National Arts Alumni Project (SNAAP) to demonstrate indicators of attrition and privilege of arts alumni relative to their participation in the arts workforce. Meaningfully different associations across racial/ethnic groups are uncovered, showing structural exclusion of Black arts alumni in particular, in addition to other intersectional dynamics. This chapter underscores the importance of addressing student debt, the potential of creative pedagogies across the curriculum, and the need for imaginative approaches to renewed public funding of art and artists.
{"title":"Social Exclusion in the Arts: The Dynamics of Social and Economic Mobility Across Three Decades of Undergraduate Arts Alumni in the United States","authors":"A. Whitaker, Gregory C. Wolniak","doi":"10.3102/0091732X221089947","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X221089947","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter presents a broad interdisciplinary literature review linking artists’ economic precarity and need for but resistance to entrepreneurial skills, alongside colonial histories, structural racism, and hierarchies of taste in arts organizations. These themes are complemented empirically by engaging data from the Strategic National Arts Alumni Project (SNAAP) to demonstrate indicators of attrition and privilege of arts alumni relative to their participation in the arts workforce. Meaningfully different associations across racial/ethnic groups are uncovered, showing structural exclusion of Black arts alumni in particular, in addition to other intersectional dynamics. This chapter underscores the importance of addressing student debt, the potential of creative pedagogies across the curriculum, and the need for imaginative approaches to renewed public funding of art and artists.","PeriodicalId":47753,"journal":{"name":"Review of Research in Education","volume":"46 1","pages":"198 - 228"},"PeriodicalIF":6.4,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46174992","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-03-01DOI: 10.3102/0091732X221084316
David Rousell, D. Harris, K. Wise, A. MacDonald, Julia Vagg
This chapter explores the urgent relevance of posthumanist theory and practice for democratizing creative educational experiences in 21st-century schools, universities, and informal learning environments. Posthumanism challenges the myopic centering of the human in creative education in an age of climate change, artificial intelligence, and zoonotic disease, where nonhuman agencies are intricately imbricated in human cultures and lives. Using a cartographic methodology, the chapter critically maps key theories and debates in posthumanist creativity studies across four substantive fields of inquiry: (a) process philosophy, (b) affect studies, (c) place-based education, and (d) creative ecology. Drawing links between theoretical concepts and practical examples of creative experience across formal and informal education contexts, the chapter scopes an alternative agenda for critical studies of creativity in light of the posthuman turn.
{"title":"Posthuman Creativities: Democratizing Creative Educational Experience Beyond the Human","authors":"David Rousell, D. Harris, K. Wise, A. MacDonald, Julia Vagg","doi":"10.3102/0091732X221084316","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X221084316","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter explores the urgent relevance of posthumanist theory and practice for democratizing creative educational experiences in 21st-century schools, universities, and informal learning environments. Posthumanism challenges the myopic centering of the human in creative education in an age of climate change, artificial intelligence, and zoonotic disease, where nonhuman agencies are intricately imbricated in human cultures and lives. Using a cartographic methodology, the chapter critically maps key theories and debates in posthumanist creativity studies across four substantive fields of inquiry: (a) process philosophy, (b) affect studies, (c) place-based education, and (d) creative ecology. Drawing links between theoretical concepts and practical examples of creative experience across formal and informal education contexts, the chapter scopes an alternative agenda for critical studies of creativity in light of the posthuman turn.","PeriodicalId":47753,"journal":{"name":"Review of Research in Education","volume":"46 1","pages":"374 - 397"},"PeriodicalIF":6.4,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48152756","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-03-01DOI: 10.3102/0091732X221084324
Rohit Mehta, D. Henriksen
In response to the special issue on democratizing creative educational experiences (CEE), we conducted a thematic analysis of recent scholarship on creativity and decolonization (2010–2021) and analyzed recurring tensions across literature grounded in Indigenous, Black, feminist, and non-western epistemological perspectives on creativity. We found themes that are not new but are yet to be taken up consistently and credibly in western creativity and education research and practice. For instance, spirituality emerges as a valuable ingredient for creativity, body as inseparable from the mind, dialectic resistance and resilience as acts of creative existence, and non-human agency as essential to the creative process. Informed by these themes, we share implications for research and practice, seeking new spaces inclusive of historically ignored onto-epistemologies.
{"title":"To Democratize, First Decolonize: Approaches Beyond Eurocentric and Colonial Epistemologies in Creativity","authors":"Rohit Mehta, D. Henriksen","doi":"10.3102/0091732X221084324","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X221084324","url":null,"abstract":"In response to the special issue on democratizing creative educational experiences (CEE), we conducted a thematic analysis of recent scholarship on creativity and decolonization (2010–2021) and analyzed recurring tensions across literature grounded in Indigenous, Black, feminist, and non-western epistemological perspectives on creativity. We found themes that are not new but are yet to be taken up consistently and credibly in western creativity and education research and practice. For instance, spirituality emerges as a valuable ingredient for creativity, body as inseparable from the mind, dialectic resistance and resilience as acts of creative existence, and non-human agency as essential to the creative process. Informed by these themes, we share implications for research and practice, seeking new spaces inclusive of historically ignored onto-epistemologies.","PeriodicalId":47753,"journal":{"name":"Review of Research in Education","volume":"46 1","pages":"105 - 133"},"PeriodicalIF":6.4,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42859240","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Inquiring into the democratization of creative early educational experiences through the lens of the politics of belonging, this review of research asks: What does research reveal about creative early educational experiences as they pertain to history, race, and justice? Seeking to better understand the racialization of creative early educational experiences, this review undertakes a transformative justice in education approach, attending to the historical roots of the contemporary racialized politics of belonging. Despite the creativity, improvisation, and imagination displayed historically by Black, Indigenous, and other Communities of Color, findings underscore how creative educational experiences prioritize Eurocentric onto-epistemologies, (re)inscribing inequitable schooling. Creative disruption and Black futurities offer two possible pathways to disrupt the legacy of racism in U.S. early schooling.
{"title":"Democratizing Creative Early Educational Experiences: A Matter of Racial Justice","authors":"Mariana Souto-Manning, Abby C. Emerson, Gina Marcel, Ayesha Rabadi-Raol, Adrielle Turner","doi":"10.3102/0091732X221084327","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X221084327","url":null,"abstract":"Inquiring into the democratization of creative early educational experiences through the lens of the politics of belonging, this review of research asks: What does research reveal about creative early educational experiences as they pertain to history, race, and justice? Seeking to better understand the racialization of creative early educational experiences, this review undertakes a transformative justice in education approach, attending to the historical roots of the contemporary racialized politics of belonging. Despite the creativity, improvisation, and imagination displayed historically by Black, Indigenous, and other Communities of Color, findings underscore how creative educational experiences prioritize Eurocentric onto-epistemologies, (re)inscribing inequitable schooling. Creative disruption and Black futurities offer two possible pathways to disrupt the legacy of racism in U.S. early schooling.","PeriodicalId":47753,"journal":{"name":"Review of Research in Education","volume":"46 1","pages":"1 - 31"},"PeriodicalIF":6.4,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45389391","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-03-01DOI: 10.3102/0091732X20985075
S. Garvis, S. Phillipson, S. Phillipson
Early childhood education and care (ECEC) remains a priority area for public policy, internationally and in Australia. However, an analysis of empirical research published internationally up to 2008 has identified a bias toward positivist methodologies within a “scientific/psychological’ rather than educational perspective and with a focus on the interactions between preschoolers, family, and child care variables. For some researchers, this bias raises concerns that public policy in ECEC is based on limited research perspectives. This chapter examines research focusing on the Australian context and published between 2010 and 2014 to determine whether this bias exists in Australian research. We explore the quality of ECEC research to develop an overall understanding of the current situation of ECEC research in Australia. Our findings suggest that Australian research in ECEC is very dissimilar to research published internationally, especially in its reliance on qualitative paradigms and a focus on the educators (principals, teachers, and teacher aides). The strong qualitative focus may allow a diverse range of voices within the ECEC sector to be heard and identified, moving beyond traditional notions of historically marginalized individuals and communities that dominate other education research areas.
{"title":"Australian Research in Early Childhood Education and Care: Insights Into the Actual; Imagining the Possible","authors":"S. Garvis, S. Phillipson, S. Phillipson","doi":"10.3102/0091732X20985075","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X20985075","url":null,"abstract":"Early childhood education and care (ECEC) remains a priority area for public policy, internationally and in Australia. However, an analysis of empirical research published internationally up to 2008 has identified a bias toward positivist methodologies within a “scientific/psychological’ rather than educational perspective and with a focus on the interactions between preschoolers, family, and child care variables. For some researchers, this bias raises concerns that public policy in ECEC is based on limited research perspectives. This chapter examines research focusing on the Australian context and published between 2010 and 2014 to determine whether this bias exists in Australian research. We explore the quality of ECEC research to develop an overall understanding of the current situation of ECEC research in Australia. Our findings suggest that Australian research in ECEC is very dissimilar to research published internationally, especially in its reliance on qualitative paradigms and a focus on the educators (principals, teachers, and teacher aides). The strong qualitative focus may allow a diverse range of voices within the ECEC sector to be heard and identified, moving beyond traditional notions of historically marginalized individuals and communities that dominate other education research areas.","PeriodicalId":47753,"journal":{"name":"Review of Research in Education","volume":"45 1","pages":"291 - 310"},"PeriodicalIF":6.4,"publicationDate":"2021-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42579693","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-03-01DOI: 10.3102/0091732X20985074
Claire Allen-Platt, Clara-Christina E. Gerstner, R. Boruch, Alan Ruby
When a researcher tests an educational program, product, or policy in a randomized controlled trial and detects a significant effect on an outcome, the intervention is usually classified as something that “works.” When expected effects are not found, there is seldom an orderly and transparent analysis of plausible reasons why. Accumulating and learning from possible failure mechanisms is not standard practice in education research, and it is not common to design interventions with causes of failure in mind. This chapter develops Boruch and Ruby’s proposition that the education sciences would benefit from a systematic approach to the study of failure. We review and taxonomize recent reports of large-scale randomized controlled trials in K–12 schooling that yielded at least one null or negative major outcome, including the nature of the event and reasons (if provided) for why it occurred. Our purpose is to introduce a broad framework for thinking about educational interventions that do not produce expected effects and seed a cumulative knowledge base on when, how, and why interventions do not reach expectations. The reasons why an individual intervention fails to elicit an outcome are not straightforward, but themes emerge when researchers’ reports are synthesized.
{"title":"Toward a Science of Failure Analysis: A Narrative Review","authors":"Claire Allen-Platt, Clara-Christina E. Gerstner, R. Boruch, Alan Ruby","doi":"10.3102/0091732X20985074","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X20985074","url":null,"abstract":"When a researcher tests an educational program, product, or policy in a randomized controlled trial and detects a significant effect on an outcome, the intervention is usually classified as something that “works.” When expected effects are not found, there is seldom an orderly and transparent analysis of plausible reasons why. Accumulating and learning from possible failure mechanisms is not standard practice in education research, and it is not common to design interventions with causes of failure in mind. This chapter develops Boruch and Ruby’s proposition that the education sciences would benefit from a systematic approach to the study of failure. We review and taxonomize recent reports of large-scale randomized controlled trials in K–12 schooling that yielded at least one null or negative major outcome, including the nature of the event and reasons (if provided) for why it occurred. Our purpose is to introduce a broad framework for thinking about educational interventions that do not produce expected effects and seed a cumulative knowledge base on when, how, and why interventions do not reach expectations. The reasons why an individual intervention fails to elicit an outcome are not straightforward, but themes emerge when researchers’ reports are synthesized.","PeriodicalId":47753,"journal":{"name":"Review of Research in Education","volume":"45 1","pages":"223 - 252"},"PeriodicalIF":6.4,"publicationDate":"2021-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48300602","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-03-01DOI: 10.3102/0091732X20985081
Ekaterina Strekalova-Hughes, K. Nash, Bevin Schmer, Karnissa Caldwell
This chapter reviews recent qualitative studies on personalized learning in middle/secondary school settings to analyze the role of culture in how this concept is enacted and researched. Personalized learning is posited as a pedagogical approach that aims to revolutionize schooling and challenge educational inequity by foregrounding learners’ agency in what and how they learn, tailoring pedagogy and its purpose to learners’ unique interests, needs, and abilities. Given the strong emphasis of the approach on the uniquenesses of the persons who are learning, our analysis interrogates the discourse on culture in studies on personalized learning and extrapolates how this discourse informs problem formulation, design and logic, sources of evidence, analysis and interpretation, and implications for practice. This review reveals a disconnect between the relevant literature on culture in learning and omissions of researchers and research participants’ cultural positionalities and identities. This appears to affect the quality of educational evidence, inhibiting a deep understanding of the implementation of the personalized learning approach for different communities of learners. We assert that research into practices that intend to meet the needs of diverse learners should center learner and researcher cultures and positionalities as part of a theory of change that permeates the entire research process.
{"title":"Meeting the Needs of All Cultureless Learners: Culture Discourse and Quality Assumptions in Personalized Learning Research","authors":"Ekaterina Strekalova-Hughes, K. Nash, Bevin Schmer, Karnissa Caldwell","doi":"10.3102/0091732X20985081","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X20985081","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter reviews recent qualitative studies on personalized learning in middle/secondary school settings to analyze the role of culture in how this concept is enacted and researched. Personalized learning is posited as a pedagogical approach that aims to revolutionize schooling and challenge educational inequity by foregrounding learners’ agency in what and how they learn, tailoring pedagogy and its purpose to learners’ unique interests, needs, and abilities. Given the strong emphasis of the approach on the uniquenesses of the persons who are learning, our analysis interrogates the discourse on culture in studies on personalized learning and extrapolates how this discourse informs problem formulation, design and logic, sources of evidence, analysis and interpretation, and implications for practice. This review reveals a disconnect between the relevant literature on culture in learning and omissions of researchers and research participants’ cultural positionalities and identities. This appears to affect the quality of educational evidence, inhibiting a deep understanding of the implementation of the personalized learning approach for different communities of learners. We assert that research into practices that intend to meet the needs of diverse learners should center learner and researcher cultures and positionalities as part of a theory of change that permeates the entire research process.","PeriodicalId":47753,"journal":{"name":"Review of Research in Education","volume":"45 1","pages":"372 - 407"},"PeriodicalIF":6.4,"publicationDate":"2021-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48656561","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-03-01DOI: 10.3102/0091732X21990620
Norma C. Ming, Lauren B. Goldenberg
This chapter calls for researchers to reconceptualize research quality from the perspective of its expected use, attending to power dynamics that influence how knowledge is defined, constructed, and validated through the research enterprise. Addressing these concerns when designing and conducting education research can yield more useful research evidence for building more equitable education systems. Anchored in scholarship on research utilization and methodological critiques, the chapter introduces a research quality framework that integrates relevance and rigor through five key dimensions of Research Worth Using: (1) relevance of question: alignment of research topics to practical priorities; (2) theoretical credibility: explanatory strength and coherence of principles investigated; (3) methodological credibility: internal and external credibility of study design and execution; (4) evidentiary credibility: robustness and consistency of cumulative evidence; and (5) relevance of answers: justification for practical application. This framework simultaneously uplifts the voices and needs of policymakers, practitioners, and community members, while elevating standards for excellence in education research. We call attention to the myriad ways in which the quality of evidence generated can be strengthened, before describing implications for curating and using research. We conclude by offering suggestions for applying and further developing the framework.
{"title":"Research Worth Using: (Re)Framing Research Evidence Quality for Educational Policymaking and Practice","authors":"Norma C. Ming, Lauren B. Goldenberg","doi":"10.3102/0091732X21990620","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X21990620","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter calls for researchers to reconceptualize research quality from the perspective of its expected use, attending to power dynamics that influence how knowledge is defined, constructed, and validated through the research enterprise. Addressing these concerns when designing and conducting education research can yield more useful research evidence for building more equitable education systems. Anchored in scholarship on research utilization and methodological critiques, the chapter introduces a research quality framework that integrates relevance and rigor through five key dimensions of Research Worth Using: (1) relevance of question: alignment of research topics to practical priorities; (2) theoretical credibility: explanatory strength and coherence of principles investigated; (3) methodological credibility: internal and external credibility of study design and execution; (4) evidentiary credibility: robustness and consistency of cumulative evidence; and (5) relevance of answers: justification for practical application. This framework simultaneously uplifts the voices and needs of policymakers, practitioners, and community members, while elevating standards for excellence in education research. We call attention to the myriad ways in which the quality of evidence generated can be strengthened, before describing implications for curating and using research. We conclude by offering suggestions for applying and further developing the framework.","PeriodicalId":47753,"journal":{"name":"Review of Research in Education","volume":"45 1","pages":"129 - 169"},"PeriodicalIF":6.4,"publicationDate":"2021-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45195631","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-03-01DOI: 10.3102/0091732X20985070
S. Cawthon, C. Garberoglio
The evidence base for educational interventions for deaf students has been, and continues to be, called into question due to a lack of “gold standard” research available to support it. Yet the paucity of research in deaf education is not only in the volume of research that meets rigorous standards but also in its lack of attention to and inclusion of a deaf-centered perspective on the inferences made about the strength of study findings in the field. This chapter uses a deaf-centered lens to examine what constitutes evidence, how it is gained, and how this information supports academic outcomes for this population. We include examples from the literature to examine implications for research personnel, study design, and accessible dissemination, with specific attention to both study sampling and measurement considerations. Considerations for deaf-centered research criteria include (a) integrating deaf researchers and epistemologies, (b) attending to the characteristics of deaf students, and (c) acknowledgment of root causes and systems factors. The recommendations in this chapter supplement the larger ongoing dialogue regarding the cultural responsiveness and representation of marginalized populations within the education research endeavor.
{"title":"Evidence-Based Practices in Deaf Education: A Call to Center Research and Evaluation on the Experiences of Deaf People","authors":"S. Cawthon, C. Garberoglio","doi":"10.3102/0091732X20985070","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X20985070","url":null,"abstract":"The evidence base for educational interventions for deaf students has been, and continues to be, called into question due to a lack of “gold standard” research available to support it. Yet the paucity of research in deaf education is not only in the volume of research that meets rigorous standards but also in its lack of attention to and inclusion of a deaf-centered perspective on the inferences made about the strength of study findings in the field. This chapter uses a deaf-centered lens to examine what constitutes evidence, how it is gained, and how this information supports academic outcomes for this population. We include examples from the literature to examine implications for research personnel, study design, and accessible dissemination, with specific attention to both study sampling and measurement considerations. Considerations for deaf-centered research criteria include (a) integrating deaf researchers and epistemologies, (b) attending to the characteristics of deaf students, and (c) acknowledgment of root causes and systems factors. The recommendations in this chapter supplement the larger ongoing dialogue regarding the cultural responsiveness and representation of marginalized populations within the education research endeavor.","PeriodicalId":47753,"journal":{"name":"Review of Research in Education","volume":"45 1","pages":"346 - 371"},"PeriodicalIF":6.4,"publicationDate":"2021-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42371253","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-03-01DOI: 10.3102/0091732X20985069
Roey Ahram, Catherine Kramarczuk Voulgarides, Rebecca A. Cruz
This chapter examines how studies focused on the same topic—disproportionality in special education—can generate vastly different conclusions about its sources and causes. By analyzing existing disagreements in the field, we explore essential questions about what constitutes high-quality and relevant evidence when seeking to understand how, when, for whom, and why disproportionality occurs. Using a holistic review of the empirical literature on disproportionality, we illustrate how differing epistemological and ontological views inform research around the topic of disability in schools and argue that to develop high-quality evidence around disproportionality, researchers need a shared framework that describes how school-based disabilities and classification processes intersect. A shared framework will enable researchers to evaluate whether their findings are expected or unexpected, connect to other related research, and build and rebuild paradigms around issues of equity in special education, rather than disregard one set of findings over another.
{"title":"Understanding Disability: High-Quality Evidence in Research on Special Education Disproportionality","authors":"Roey Ahram, Catherine Kramarczuk Voulgarides, Rebecca A. Cruz","doi":"10.3102/0091732X20985069","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X20985069","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter examines how studies focused on the same topic—disproportionality in special education—can generate vastly different conclusions about its sources and causes. By analyzing existing disagreements in the field, we explore essential questions about what constitutes high-quality and relevant evidence when seeking to understand how, when, for whom, and why disproportionality occurs. Using a holistic review of the empirical literature on disproportionality, we illustrate how differing epistemological and ontological views inform research around the topic of disability in schools and argue that to develop high-quality evidence around disproportionality, researchers need a shared framework that describes how school-based disabilities and classification processes intersect. A shared framework will enable researchers to evaluate whether their findings are expected or unexpected, connect to other related research, and build and rebuild paradigms around issues of equity in special education, rather than disregard one set of findings over another.","PeriodicalId":47753,"journal":{"name":"Review of Research in Education","volume":"45 1","pages":"311 - 345"},"PeriodicalIF":6.4,"publicationDate":"2021-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47460784","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：