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

IF 1.9 3区 教育学 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Research in Higher Education Pub Date : 2024-06-04 DOI:10.1007/s11162-024-09802-w
Christa E. Winkler, Annie M. Wofford
{"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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

为了挑战定量方法论中的 "客观 "惯例,高等教育学者越来越多地采用批判性视角(如定量批判主义、QuantCrit)。然而,具体方法仍不透明。我们采用多方法设计来考察研究人员对批判性方法的使用情况,并探讨作者如何讨论嵌入策略以颠覆主流定量思维。我们从对 2007 年至 2021 年间高等教育批判性定量研究的系统性范围审查(N = 34)和对 18 位手稿作者的半结构式访谈中获取数据。研究结果揭示了学者们采用批判性方法的(不)一致性,包括研究动机、理论框架和方法选择。此外,访谈数据揭示了作者决策过程的复杂层面,表明采用批判性定量方法的决策必须以资产为基础,并且是有意为之。最后,我们将在其指导框架(如定量批判主义、QuantCrit)的背景下讨论研究结果,并为采用和开展批判性定量研究提供启示。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

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
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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Research in Higher Education
Research in Higher Education EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
9.50%
发文量
52
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.
期刊最新文献
Assessing the Psychometric Properties of Quality Experience in Undergraduate Research Using Item Response Theory Discrimination or a Competitive Climate? Why Women Cannot Translate Their Better High School Grades into University Grades Mapping the Occupations of Recent Graduates. The Role of Academic Background in the Digital Era Less is more, or is it? Age and Gender Differences in How Students Build Momentum toward College Graduation The Relationship Between Low-Income College Students’ Time Use and Well-Being: A Mixed Methods Exploration
×
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