The Changing Context of Critical Quantitative Inquiry

Abstract

A few years ago, in 2007, Frances Stage edited a volume on critical quantitative inquiry to demonstrate the way quantitative researchers (like many of us) can use their skills to answer critical questions in higher education research. A very important characteristic of critical quantitative scholars, emphasized by all authors, is their ability to challenge the status quo by reframing research questions and challenging concepts, measures, and processes. In this brief commentary, I argue that the context of critical quantitative inquiry focused on educational equity in higher education has changed in the last decade requiring researchers to rethink and reimagine their scholarship. We now must conduct critical scholarship in the midst of more complex contexts: New technologies and ways of communication have emerged, and more interdisciplinary methodologies and conceptual frameworks have been developed. Also, equity-minded researchers in higher education are pressured to produce timely scholarship that is not only rigorous and multidisciplinary but also meaningful and relevant for policy and practice. The main point I want to make in this chapter is that, indeed, the research questions quantitative criticalists ask matter, but the way they go about answering these, the theories they use to interpret findings, and what they do with the findings matter too.My goal in this chapter is to provide a complementary framework to, hopefully, help other scholars in the field of higher education (whether quantitative or not) to be critical. The framework I discuss here is heavily informed by the scholarship of other criticalists who have impacted various fields (and my own research) in a profound way: Estela Bensimon, Sara Goldrick-Rab, Erin Leahey, and Frances Stage. After presenting the framework, I proceed to reflect and comment on each of the chapters presented NEW DIRECTIONS FOR INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH, no. 158

Researching Students with Disabilities: The Importance of Critical Perspectives

“…Devlin and Pothier () describe the goal of critical disability theory as “a politics of transformation” (p. 12). These paradigms align nicely with Rios‐Aguilar's () research activities that critical quantitative scholars must engage in—informing and challenging exclusionary educational policies and practices. Yet the higher education literature contains a dearth of research about students with disabilities (Peña, ), making research‐informed policy decisions nearly impossible.…”

“…Smart () suggested the field of higher education has relied too much on statistical significance and not enough on substantive significance. Rios‐Aguilar () problematizes the notion of significance even further by using the term “educational significance” to remind researchers to consider what results “mean practically for underrepresented and marginalized groups of students’ experiences and opportunities” (p. 99).…”

“…This chapter describes the complexity of quantitative research examining students with disabilities and outlines what higher education researchers can do to expose and address their marginalization. The structure of this chapter is inspired by Rios‐Aguilar's () framework for conducting critical quantitative work, which builds on Stage's () conceptualization of critical quantitative research in higher education. A slightly modified version of Rios‐Aguilar's list of research activities serves as headings in this chapter.…”

An epistemological revolution

“…Tierney's (1993) well-known and widely respected work on building communities of difference also blended two theoretical perspectives by blending postmodernism and criticalism. Further, several researchers (e.g., Rios-Aguilar, 2014;Rios-Aguilar, 2015;Stage & Wells, 2014;Wells & Stage, 2015, among others) have proposed critical quantitative inquiry as an important contribution and potential mode of inquiry within higher education and student affairs.…”

“…Analytically, this decision is based on the sample size, however, conceptually, it infers that White students should be the category of reference for all other students. This decision preferences White students as having experiences and learning that is warranted for comparison for marginalized students (Rios-Aguilar, 2014).…”