Critical Race Theory and Mixed Methods in Educational Research: A Scoping Review

Dawn Bagwell, Nicole R. Hall, T. Worsley, Debra A. Neblett
{"title":"Critical Race Theory and Mixed Methods in Educational Research: A Scoping Review","authors":"Dawn Bagwell, Nicole R. Hall, T. Worsley, Debra A. Neblett","doi":"10.29034/ijmra.v14n1a1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"As educational researchers respond to the current debate around critical race theory (CRT) playing out in legislation across the United States, the debate is challenging mixed methods researchers to imagine new ways of conducting inquiry. In this scoping review, we examine current educational research that uses both a CRT theoretical framework and a mixed methods research (MMR) design to demonstrate the potential that a combined approach must leverage participants’ voices and experiential knowledge to provide more concrete ways in which institutions might challenge dominant ideologies and adopt a more transformative stance. We found that when researchers were able to both purposefully (and indistinguishably) integrate CRT within the MMR design (Hammersley, 2018) and highlight the underlying distinctions between quantitative and qualitative in their methodological choices (Morgan, 2018), they advanced the field by providing richer, more detailed road maps for dismantling systemic inequities. Our findings expose the ways in which well-defined, intentional methodological approaches more fully embrace praxis to foster more equitable outcomes.","PeriodicalId":89571,"journal":{"name":"International journal of multiple research approaches","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of multiple research approaches","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.29034/ijmra.v14n1a1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

As educational researchers respond to the current debate around critical race theory (CRT) playing out in legislation across the United States, the debate is challenging mixed methods researchers to imagine new ways of conducting inquiry. In this scoping review, we examine current educational research that uses both a CRT theoretical framework and a mixed methods research (MMR) design to demonstrate the potential that a combined approach must leverage participants’ voices and experiential knowledge to provide more concrete ways in which institutions might challenge dominant ideologies and adopt a more transformative stance. We found that when researchers were able to both purposefully (and indistinguishably) integrate CRT within the MMR design (Hammersley, 2018) and highlight the underlying distinctions between quantitative and qualitative in their methodological choices (Morgan, 2018), they advanced the field by providing richer, more detailed road maps for dismantling systemic inequities. Our findings expose the ways in which well-defined, intentional methodological approaches more fully embrace praxis to foster more equitable outcomes.
教育研究中的批判种族理论与混合方法
随着教育研究人员对目前美国各地立法中围绕批判性种族理论(CRT)展开的辩论做出回应,这场辩论正在挑战混合方法研究人员想象新的调查方式。在这篇范围界定综述中,我们考察了当前的教育研究,该研究既使用CRT理论框架,又使用混合方法研究(MMR)设计,以证明联合方法必须利用参与者的声音和经验知识,为机构挑战主流意识形态并采取更具变革性的立场提供更具体的方式。我们发现,当研究人员能够有目的地(且不可区分地)将CRT整合到MMR设计中时(Hammersley,2018),并在方法选择中强调定量和定性之间的根本区别时(Morgan,2018)。他们通过提供更丰富、更详细的路线图来消除系统性不平等,从而推进了这一领域。我们的研究结果揭示了定义明确、有意的方法论方法如何更充分地接受实践,以促进更公平的结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信