理解残疾:特殊教育不均衡研究的高质量证据

IF 2.4 1区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Review of Research in Education Pub Date : 2021-03-01 DOI:10.3102/0091732X20985069
Roey Ahram, Catherine Kramarczuk Voulgarides, Rebecca A. Cruz
{"title":"理解残疾:特殊教育不均衡研究的高质量证据","authors":"Roey Ahram, Catherine Kramarczuk Voulgarides, Rebecca A. Cruz","doi":"10.3102/0091732X20985069","DOIUrl":null,"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":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"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\":null,\"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\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Review of Research in Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X20985069\",\"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}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Review of Research in Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X20985069","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: 5

摘要

本章探讨了专注于同一主题——特殊教育中的不均衡性——的研究如何对其来源和原因得出截然不同的结论。通过分析该领域现有的分歧,我们探讨了什么构成高质量和相关证据的基本问题,以了解不均衡是如何、何时、为谁以及为什么发生的。通过对非均衡性实证文献的全面回顾,我们说明了不同的认识论和本体论观点如何为学校残疾主题的研究提供信息,并认为为了围绕非均衡性开发高质量的证据,研究人员需要一个描述学校残疾和分类过程如何交叉的共享框架。一个共享的框架将使研究人员能够评估他们的发现是意料之中的还是出乎意料的,与其他相关研究联系起来,并围绕特殊教育的公平问题建立和重建范式,而不是忽视一组发现而忽视另一组发现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Understanding Disability: High-Quality Evidence in Research on Special Education Disproportionality
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.
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
Review of Research in Education
Review of Research in Education EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
15.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
期刊介绍: Review of Research in Education (RRE), published annually since 1973 (approximately 416 pp./volume year), provides an overview and descriptive analysis of selected topics of relevant research literature through critical and synthesizing essays. Articles are usually solicited for specific RRE issues. There may also be calls for papers. RRE promotes discussion and controversy about research problems in addition to pulling together and summarizing the work in a field.
期刊最新文献
Creative Methods for Creativity Research(ers)? Speculations Creativity as a Racializing and Ableizing Scientific Object: Disentangling the Democratic Impulse From Justice-Oriented Futures To Democratize, First Decolonize: Approaches Beyond Eurocentric and Colonial Epistemologies in Creativity Unapologetically Black Creative Educational Experiences in Higher Education: A Critical Review Exploring Conceptions of Creativity and Latinidad in Environmental Education Through the Lens of Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy
×
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