{"title":"批判性定量教育研究的趋势和动机:高等教育学术和作者视角的多方法考察","authors":"Christa E. Winkler, Annie M. Wofford","doi":"10.1007/s11162-024-09802-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>To challenge “objective” conventions in quantitative methodology, higher education scholars have increasingly employed critical lenses (e.g., quantitative criticalism, QuantCrit). Yet, specific approaches remain opaque. We use a multimethod design to examine researchers’ use of critical approaches and explore how authors discussed embedding strategies to disrupt dominant quantitative thinking. We draw data from a systematic scoping review of critical quantitative higher education research between 2007 and 2021 (<i>N</i> = 34) and semi-structured interviews with 18 manuscript authors. Findings illuminate (in)consistencies across scholars’ incorporation of critical approaches, including within study motivations, theoretical framing, and methodological choices. Additionally, interview data reveal complex layers to authors’ decision-making processes, indicating that decisions about embracing critical quantitative approaches must be asset-based and intentional. Lastly, we discuss findings in the context of their guiding frameworks (e.g., quantitative criticalism, QuantCrit) and offer implications for employing and conducting research about critical quantitative research.</p>","PeriodicalId":48200,"journal":{"name":"Research in Higher Education","volume":"69 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Trends and Motivations in Critical Quantitative Educational Research: A Multimethod Examination Across Higher Education Scholarship and Author Perspectives\",\"authors\":\"Christa E. Winkler, Annie M. Wofford\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11162-024-09802-w\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>To challenge “objective” conventions in quantitative methodology, higher education scholars have increasingly employed critical lenses (e.g., quantitative criticalism, QuantCrit). Yet, specific approaches remain opaque. We use a multimethod design to examine researchers’ use of critical approaches and explore how authors discussed embedding strategies to disrupt dominant quantitative thinking. We draw data from a systematic scoping review of critical quantitative higher education research between 2007 and 2021 (<i>N</i> = 34) and semi-structured interviews with 18 manuscript authors. Findings illuminate (in)consistencies across scholars’ incorporation of critical approaches, including within study motivations, theoretical framing, and methodological choices. Additionally, interview data reveal complex layers to authors’ decision-making processes, indicating that decisions about embracing critical quantitative approaches must be asset-based and intentional. Lastly, we discuss findings in the context of their guiding frameworks (e.g., quantitative criticalism, QuantCrit) and offer implications for employing and conducting research about critical quantitative research.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48200,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Research in Higher Education\",\"volume\":\"69 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Research in Higher Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-024-09802-w\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research in Higher Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-024-09802-w","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
Trends and Motivations in Critical Quantitative Educational Research: A Multimethod Examination Across Higher Education Scholarship and Author Perspectives
To challenge “objective” conventions in quantitative methodology, higher education scholars have increasingly employed critical lenses (e.g., quantitative criticalism, QuantCrit). Yet, specific approaches remain opaque. We use a multimethod design to examine researchers’ use of critical approaches and explore how authors discussed embedding strategies to disrupt dominant quantitative thinking. We draw data from a systematic scoping review of critical quantitative higher education research between 2007 and 2021 (N = 34) and semi-structured interviews with 18 manuscript authors. Findings illuminate (in)consistencies across scholars’ incorporation of critical approaches, including within study motivations, theoretical framing, and methodological choices. Additionally, interview data reveal complex layers to authors’ decision-making processes, indicating that decisions about embracing critical quantitative approaches must be asset-based and intentional. Lastly, we discuss findings in the context of their guiding frameworks (e.g., quantitative criticalism, QuantCrit) and offer implications for employing and conducting research about critical quantitative research.
期刊介绍:
Research in Higher Education publishes studies that examine issues pertaining to postsecondary education. The journal is open to studies using a wide range of methods, but has particular interest in studies that apply advanced quantitative research methods to issues in postsecondary education or address postsecondary education policy issues. Among the topics of interest to the journal are: access and retention; student success; equity; faculty issues; institutional productivity and assessment; postsecondary education governance; curriculum and instruction; state and federal higher education policy; and financing of postsecondary education. The journal encourages submissions from scholars in disciplines outside of higher education, and studies from outside the United States that address issues that are of interest to the readership. The journal will on occasion publish short notes of a methodological nature, literature reviews of topics pertaining to postsecondary research, and “research and practice” studies illustrating how postsecondary research can inform decision making.