Advertisement

Quantitative Methods for Social Justice and Equity: Theoretical and Practical Considerations

  • Kamden K. StrunkEmail author
  • Payton D. Hoover
Chapter
  • 514 Downloads

Abstract

Quantitative methods, in both their historical and contemporary use, have been mobilized from hegemonic, positivist perspectives with implicit assumptions of whiteness and cisheteropatriarchy. Often, quantitative approaches are dehumanizing, totalizing, and homogenizing. However, there is growing interest in and efforts toward using quantitative methods for more equitable aims. In this chapter, we highlight some of the historical, theoretical, and practical challenges in using quantitative methods in equity-oriented scholarship and suggest practical ways to humanize those methods.

References

  1. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: Authors.Google Scholar
  2. Bonilla-Silva, E., & Zuberi, T. (2008). Toward a definition of white logic and white methods. In E. Bonilla-Silva & T. Zuberi (Eds.), White logic, white methods: Racism and methodology (pp. 3–29). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  3. Davidson, I. J. (2018). The ouroboros of psychological methodology: The case of effect sizes (mechanical objectivity vs expertise). Review of General Psychology.  https://doi.org/10.1037/gpr0000154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. DeCuir, J. T., & Dixson, A. D. (2004). “So when it comes out, they aren’t surprised that it is there”: Using critical race theory as a tool of analysis of race and racism in education. Educational Researcher, 33(5), 26–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Giroux, H. A. (2011). On critical pedagogy. New York, NY: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  6. Herrnstein, R. J., & Murray, C. (1994). The bell curve: Intelligence and class structure in American life. New York, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar
  7. Institute for Education Sciences. (2003, December). Identifying and implementing educational practices supported by rigorous evidence: A user friendly guide. National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/evidence_based/randomized.asp
  8. Kincheloe, J. L., Steinberg, S. R., & Gresson, A. D. (1997). Measured lies: The bell curve examined. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  9. Koonce, J. B. (2018). Critical race theory and caring as channels for transcending borders between an African American Professor and her Latina/o students. International Journal of Multicultural Education, 20(2), 101–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Leonardo, Z., & Grubb, W. N. (2018). Education and racism: A primer on issues and dilemmas. New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Nolan, K. (2014). Neoliberal common sense and race-neutral discourses: A critique of “evidence-based” policy-making in school policing. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 36(6), 894–907.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2014.905457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Reed, S. J., & Miller, R. L. (2016). Thriving and adapting: Resilience, sense of community, and syndemics among young Black gay and bisexual men. American Journal of Community Psychology, 57(1–2), 129–143. https://doi-org.spot.lib.auburn.edu/10.1002/ajcp.12028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Richardson, T. Q. (1995). The window dressing behind The Bell Curve. School Psychology Review, 24(1), 42–44.Google Scholar
  14. Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5), 797–811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Strunk, K. K. (in press). A critical theory approach to LGBTQ studies in quantitative methods courses. In N. M. Rodriguez (Ed.), Teaching LGBTQ+ studies: Theoretical perspectives. New York, NY: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  16. Strunk, K. K., & Bailey, L. E. (2015). The difference one word makes: Imagining sexual orientation in graduate school application essays. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 2(4), 456–462.  https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Teranishi, R. T. (2007). Race, ethnicity, and higher education policy: The use of critical quantitative research. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2007(133), 37–49.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ir.203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ungar, M., & Liebenberg, L. (2011). Assessing resilience across cultures using mixed methods: Construction of the Child and Youth Resilience Measure. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 5(2), 126–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Usher, E. L. (2018). Acknowledging the whiteness of motivation research: Seeking cultural relevance. Educational Psychologist, 53(2), 131–144.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2018.1442220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Valencia, R. R., & Suzuki, L. A. (2001). Intelligence testing and minority students: Foundations, performance factors, and assessment issues. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Educational Psychology and Research MethodologiesAuburn UniversityAuburnUSA
  2. 2.Auburn UniversityAuburnUSA

Personalised recommendations