What Is “Good” Research? Revealing the Paradigmatic Tensions in Quantitative Criticalist Work

Abstract

If quantitative criticalism is thought to be a bridge between positivist epistemologies prevalent in quantitative work and social constructionism often found in critical qualitative work, then this bridge is fraught with challenges and tensions. This chapter examines the methodological issues, questions, and tensions that emerged from a research team project. What constitutes “good” research? To what extent do we take our critical perspective in our analysis? Is quantitative criticalism a coming together of different research paradigms? What training is essential for quantitative criticalist work? These critical methodological questions require some frank discussion as we move forward in developing research designs that incorporate quantitative criticalism and in training new researchers.

Uncovering the effects of the sociopolitical context of the Nuevo South on Latinx college students’ ethnic identification.

“…A series of decisions in research design and data manipulation cannot fully account for values or stances for social justice. Rather, QuantCrit is more than methodological decision making; it is an ethical, personal, and epistemological stance toward who is valid and upheld in research (Hernández, 2015; Pérez Huber et al, 2018; Sablan, 2019). Researchers’ methods selections alone cannot adequately account for their values and reasoning in research.…”

“…To address construct validity, the La Conciencia de Equidad en el Sur Survey was developed by two of our team’s researchers using feedback from an advisory group comprised by faculty and doctoral students who work serving Latinx students in higher education, and some serve this population in the Nuevo South. This form of expert review, in conversation with literature on Latinx racialized encounters and construction in the Nuevo South, corresponds with validity techniques that challenge normative, positivistic quantitative methodologies (Hernández, 2015; Sablan, 2019). During survey development, this advisory group provided feedback on a draft of the survey through written comments and conversations.…”

“…QuantCrit prioritizes addressing inequities and injustices by rupturing with normative, positivistic methodological decision making, which requires QuantCrit scholars to merge reflexive techniques and critical scholarship. As Hernández (2015) articulates, there is not a stepwise methodological handbook for critical quantitative approaches, nor should there be as QuantCrit approaches require consideration of the distinctive and relational factors among researcher–participant-context intersubjectivity. Responsibility at this nexus may require epistemological breaks with normative quantitative methods that customarily indicate valid, reliable, or trustworthy research.…”

Exposing the intersections in LGBQ+ student of color belongingness: Disrupting hegemonic narratives sustained in college impact work.

“…Intersectional quantitative scholarship stems from critical quantitative researchers who attempt to leverage large data sets for goals of equity and liberation (Hernández, 2015;Sablan, 2019;Stage & Wells, 2014). In particular, critical quantitative philosophies challenge individuals to examine how power is (re)produced through the ways research questions are asked, analytic choices are made, and interpretations of results are offered (Hernández, 2015). One subset of critical quantitative research involves using intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1989(Crenshaw, , 1991 to conduct analyses (López et al, 2018).…”

“…One of the central beliefs of critical quantitative scholarship involves refusing the objectivity that researchers typically associate with quantitative methods (Hernández, 2015; López et al, 2018). Instead, critical quantitative scholars assert that it is necessary to explicitly account for and describe how a researcher’s positionality influences their approach to conducting a study.…”