在教育研究中对参与者进行分组和探索种族异质性的量化批评方法综述

IF 4.9 2区 心理学 Q1 BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Sauro Civitillo , Eduardo Campbell-Bethancourt , Philipp Jugert
{"title":"在教育研究中对参与者进行分组和探索种族异质性的量化批评方法综述","authors":"Sauro Civitillo ,&nbsp;Eduardo Campbell-Bethancourt ,&nbsp;Philipp Jugert","doi":"10.1016/j.cobeha.2025.101537","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Quantitative studies in education often treat race, ethnicity, culture, or migration status as natural, fixed units of analysis, perpetuating oversimplified views of education inequities. While uncritical, poorly theorized, and retrospective group comparisons may reinforce deficit perspectives of marginalized communities, comparative research also has the potential to highlight the unique strengths and resources these groups possess. However, conducting group-based comparisons and showcasing ethno-racial heterogeneity remains a complex challenge. To highlight critical approaches informed by the QuantCrit framework, our review describes the importance of using alternative operationalizations of ethno-racial categories, effect coding, and person-centered analysis. It also summarizes recent educational studies that have employed these approaches to critically engage with group-based comparisons in education. Our insights aim to promote conducting group-based educational studies with quantitative approaches upholding critical reflexivity.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":56191,"journal":{"name":"Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences","volume":"64 ","pages":"Article 101537"},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A review of QuantCrit-informed approaches to group participants and explore ethno-racial heterogeneity in educational research\",\"authors\":\"Sauro Civitillo ,&nbsp;Eduardo Campbell-Bethancourt ,&nbsp;Philipp Jugert\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.cobeha.2025.101537\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Quantitative studies in education often treat race, ethnicity, culture, or migration status as natural, fixed units of analysis, perpetuating oversimplified views of education inequities. While uncritical, poorly theorized, and retrospective group comparisons may reinforce deficit perspectives of marginalized communities, comparative research also has the potential to highlight the unique strengths and resources these groups possess. However, conducting group-based comparisons and showcasing ethno-racial heterogeneity remains a complex challenge. To highlight critical approaches informed by the QuantCrit framework, our review describes the importance of using alternative operationalizations of ethno-racial categories, effect coding, and person-centered analysis. It also summarizes recent educational studies that have employed these approaches to critically engage with group-based comparisons in education. Our insights aim to promote conducting group-based educational studies with quantitative approaches upholding critical reflexivity.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":56191,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences\",\"volume\":\"64 \",\"pages\":\"Article 101537\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352154625000567\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352154625000567","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

教育领域的定量研究通常将种族、民族、文化或移民身份视为自然的、固定的分析单位,使教育不平等的观点过于简单化。虽然不加批判、缺乏理论依据和回顾性的群体比较可能会强化边缘化群体的缺陷视角,但比较研究也有可能突出这些群体拥有的独特优势和资源。然而,进行以群体为基础的比较并展示种族异质性仍然是一项复杂的挑战。为了强调QuantCrit框架提供的关键方法,我们的综述描述了使用民族-种族类别、效果编码和以人为中心的分析的替代操作化的重要性。它还总结了最近的教育研究,这些研究采用这些方法批判性地参与教育中基于群体的比较。我们的见解旨在促进开展以群体为基础的教育研究,采用坚持批判性反思的定量方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A review of QuantCrit-informed approaches to group participants and explore ethno-racial heterogeneity in educational research
Quantitative studies in education often treat race, ethnicity, culture, or migration status as natural, fixed units of analysis, perpetuating oversimplified views of education inequities. While uncritical, poorly theorized, and retrospective group comparisons may reinforce deficit perspectives of marginalized communities, comparative research also has the potential to highlight the unique strengths and resources these groups possess. However, conducting group-based comparisons and showcasing ethno-racial heterogeneity remains a complex challenge. To highlight critical approaches informed by the QuantCrit framework, our review describes the importance of using alternative operationalizations of ethno-racial categories, effect coding, and person-centered analysis. It also summarizes recent educational studies that have employed these approaches to critically engage with group-based comparisons in education. Our insights aim to promote conducting group-based educational studies with quantitative approaches upholding critical reflexivity.
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
Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences
Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences Neuroscience-Cognitive Neuroscience
CiteScore
10.90
自引率
2.00%
发文量
135
期刊介绍: Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences is a systematic, integrative review journal that provides a unique and educational platform for updates on the expanding volume of information published in the field of behavioral sciences.
×
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