Prior Work Weeks

Workshops

2025 Work Week Organizers

David Sul, Ed.D., University of San Francisco

Culturally responsive assessment & evaluation; QuantCrit; item response theory.

Thao Vo, Ph.D., Washington State University

Applied psychometrics; validity & equity (Center for Measurement Justice).

Chris Patterson, Ph.D., Knox College

2025 Work Week Sessions

The 2025 Work Week consisted of the following sessions.

A1. Work Week Opening Session: Theoretical Foundations of Critical Quantitative Methods

2025-07-21 | 1 PM EDT
Presenter(s): David Sul, Ed.D., University of the Virgin Islands
Description

The first session of the Work Week will focus on the Critical theoretic foundations of Critical Quantitative methods.

Criticality Statement

Sul situates assessment as a force for uplifting communities. His focus on large-scale culturally specific assessment has emerged after a decades-long career as an educator and program evaluator. His work is a descendant of Critical Pedagogy (Freire, 1970), Culturally Relevant Teaching (Ladson-Billings, 1994), and Culturally Responsive Assessment (Hood, 1998). Through the use of modern measurement theory, Sul offers culturally specific assessment as a means to move beyond a dependency on Likert-based measures to produce the numerical values necessary for the conduct of Critical Quantitative research including QuantCrit (Gillborn, et al., 2018) research.

A1. Work Week: A space for convening

2026-07-20 | 1 PM EDT
Presenter(s): David Sul, Ed.D., Sul & Associates International; University of San Francisco; University of the Virgin Islands
Description

This opening talk asks where Critical Quantitative Methods stands, and frames the Work Week as a space where scholars convene to build what comes next.

Criticality Statement

A2. Modeling power: Exploring early childhood education, maternal agency and justifications of harsh discipline using the Cambodian Demographic and Health Survey

2025-07-21 | 2 PM EDT
Presenter(s): Kelly R. Grace, The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston
Description

Background↵

Harsh child discipline is a persistent issue in Cambodia, often rooted in patriarchal norms and the societal acceptance of domestic violence (Miles & Thomas, 2007; UNICEF-Cambodia, 2013). In response, early childhood education (ECE) programs have expanded rapidly, aiming to improve child development and reduce harsh discipline through parenting education and community engagement (Ministry of Education, Youth & Sports, 2014a; Rao & Pearson, 2009). However, feminist scholars critique these programs for reinforcing traditional caregiving roles that may further marginalize women (De Carvalho, 2000; Reay, 1998). Stromquist’s (2015) knowledge empowerment framework offers a counterpoint, suggesting that empowering mothers through education can shift their understanding of power and reduce oppressive practices, including harsh child discipline.

↵Purpose of the Study↵

This study explores the relationship between mothers’ contact with ECE programs and their justifications of harsh child discipline, focusing on the mediating roles of maternal agency and involvement in early stimulation activities. The aim is to offer a feminist perspective on mothers’ roles in ECE and child protection.

↵Methods↵

Using data from the 2014 Cambodia Demographic and Health Survey (CDHS), the study analyzes responses from 1,809 women aged 18–49 (National Institute of Statistics, Directorate General for Health, and ICF International, 2015). A quasi-experimental design compares mothers with and without ECE program contact. Structural equation modeling (SEM) assesses relationships among maternal agency, early stimulation involvement, and justifications of harsh child discipline, controlling for education, location, and socioeconomic status.

↵Results↵

Maternal agency was measured using three latent constructs: access to information, decision-making, and justifications of domestic violence. All loaded significantly onto a second-order agency construct (e.g., decision-making: ß=0.17, SE=0.05, p<.001; access to information: ß=0.41, SE=0.06, p<.001; justifications of domestic violence: ß=0.88, SE=0.01, p<.001). Contact with ECE programs was positively associated with both maternal agency (ß=0.30, SE=0.06, p<.001) and early stimulation involvement (ß=0.36, SE=0.04, p<.001). Maternal agency was negatively associated with justifications of harsh child discipline (ß=-0.89, SE=0.09, p<.001) and significantly mediated the relationship between ECE contact and discipline justifications (ß=-0.26, SE=0.07, p<.001). In contrast, early stimulation involvement did not significantly mediate this relationship (ß=-0.01, SE=0.01, p=.547). The total indirect effect showed that ECE contact was associated with reduced justification of harsh child discipline through maternal agency (ß=-0.17, SE=0.04, p<.001).

↵Discussion↵

The findings highlight maternal agency as a key factor in reducing justifications of harsh child discipline. While ECE contact was linked to both agency and stimulation involvement, only agency mediated the relationship with discipline justifications. This challenges assumptions that early stimulation alone improves child outcomes and underscores the need to support mothers beyond caregiving roles. ECE programs should prioritize fostering agency, enabling mothers to challenge patriarchal norms and adopt positive parenting practices.

↵Implications for Pedagogy, Theory, or Practice↵

Drawing on feminist theory and Stromquist’s knowledge empowerment framework, this study argues that ECE programs can transform mothers’ understanding of power and reduce oppressive practices. However, the lack of correlation between agency and early stimulation raises questions about how empowerment is operationalized in ECE. Programs should engage mothers as advocates for child protection and support their agency through literacy, access to information, and social networks. Centering mothers in ECE policy and practice offers a holistic approach to advancing both women’s empowerment and child protection.

↵

This study contributes to feminist theory by demonstrating how maternal agency—when supported through ECE—can serve as a tool for liberation rather than oppression. This presentation explores both the challenges and possibilities of integrating feminist theory with SEM using a large national dataset like the CDHS.

↵References↵

De Carvalho, M. E. (2000). Rethinking family-school relations: A critique of parental involvement in schooling. Psychology Press.

↵

Miles, G., & Thomas, N. (2007). ‘Don't grind an egg against a stone’—children's rights and violence in Cambodian history and culture. Child Abuse Review, 16(6), 383-400.

↵

Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport (MoEYS) of Cambodia. (2014a). National Action Plan on Early Childhood Development 2014-2018. Phnom Penh.

↵

National Institute of Statistics, Directorate General for Health, and ICF International. (2015). Cambodia Demographic and Health Survey 2014. Phnom Penh, Cambodia, and Rockville, Maryland, USA.

↵

Rao, N., & Pearson, V. (2009). Early childhood care and education in Cambodia. International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy, 3(1), 13.

↵

Reay, D. (1998). Class work: Mothers' involvement in their children's primary schooling. UCL Press.

↵

Stromquist, N. P. (2015). Women's empowerment and education: Linking knowledge to transformative action. European Journal of Education, 50(3), 307-324.

↵

UNICEF-Cambodia. (2013). The Economic Burden of the Health Consequences of Violence Against Children in Cambodia. Phnom Penh, Cambodia.

Criticality Statement

Grace believes that society is structured through intersecting layers of oppression that privilege dominant groups. Recognizing her own position within a dominant group, she is committed to research that challenges and disrupts these structures, focusing on reimagining quantitative methodologies—particularly through justice-centered decision-making and tools like structural equation modeling—to expose and transform inequitable systems. Her research applies feminist theory, specifically women's empowerment theory, to examine educational spaces and understand power dynamics in under-explored contexts, aiming for methodological innovation using advanced quantitative modeling. In her study, "Modeling power: Exploring early childhood education, maternal agency and justifications of harsh discipline using the Cambodian Demographic and Health Survey," Grace investigates the relationship between mothers' contact with Early Childhood Education (ECE) programs and their justifications of harsh child discipline in Cambodia, focusing on the mediating roles of maternal agency and involvement in early stimulation activities. Using data from the 2014 Cambodia Demographic and Health Survey (CDHS) and structural equation modeling (SEM), the study found that maternal agency significantly mediated the relationship between ECE contact and reduced justifications of harsh child discipline, challenging assumptions that early stimulation alone improves child outcomes. The findings highlight maternal agency as a key factor in reducing justifications of harsh child discipline and advocate for ECE programs to prioritize fostering agency in mothers, enabling them to challenge patriarchal norms and adopt positive parenting practices, thereby positioning mothers as agents of social change in early childhood education programs.

A2. A Critical Quantitative Review of Wendy Zagray Warren’s “An Illusion of Equity: The Legacy of Eugenics in Today’s Education

2026-07-20 | 2 PM EDT
Presenter(s): Benjamin Brumley, Ph.D., West Chester University
Description

This critical book review examines the historical and contemporary relationship between standardized testing, eugenic thought, and educational inequality through a critical quantitative reading of Wendy Zagray Warren’s An Illusion of Equity: The Legacy of Eugenics in Today’s Education. The review is grounded in literature from QuantCrit, critical race theory, and critical quantitative methods, all of which challenge the assumption that data and testing are neutral tools. Scholars in critical quantitative traditions argue that numbers are socially produced and that categories such as race, class, and ability are shaped by institutional power rather than discovered objectively. Likewise, historical work on intelligence testing and psychometrics has shown that large-scale assessment emerged alongside racial and hereditarian projects that treated hierarchy as natural and scientifically defensible. Taken together, this literature suggests that modern testing systems cannot be understood only as technical instruments; they must also be analyzed as cultural and political mechanisms that legitimize inequality and hierarchy.

The purpose of this critical book review is to investigate how Warren’s text contributes to contemporary debates about testing, equity, and educational governance. More specifically, the book review asks:

(1) How does Warren trace the connection between eugenics and present-day educational testing?

(2) In what ways does her argument align with or extend critical quantitative scholarship on data, power, and inequality? and

(3) What does her critique suggest about the continued role of standardized testing in reproducing class-based hierarchies in U.S. education?

The problem motivating this study is that standardized testing continues to be framed in public discourse as objective, meritocratic, and necessary, even though its historical foundations and present-day consequences suggest otherwise. By revisiting Warren’s intervention through a critical quantitative lens, this study seeks to clarify the measurement stakes of her argument and to situate her work within broader struggles over educational justice.

The implications of this critical book review are practical, theoretical and pedagogical. For pedagogy, it calls educators to reconsider assessment practices that privilege ranking over authentic learning and the over reliance on the Educational Testing Service. For theory, it strengthens the case for bringing critical theory and quantitative inquiry into closer conversation in teaching the history of educational testing. For practice, it suggests that more democratic, community-accountable, and teacher-driven forms of assessment are necessary if education is to move beyond the illusion of equity and toward a more just future.

Criticality Statement

My research is situated within critical theory because it examines education as a site where structural inequality is reproduced through everyday institutional practices. Drawing from critical race theory, antiracist scholarship, and critical quantitative traditions, I treat categories such as race, class, and ability as historically constructed and politically maintained rather than natural and organic. In that sense, my research is critical not only because it critiques inequity, but because it asks how dominant forms of knowledge become normalized and how they might be reimagined otherwise.

A3. Listening to Psychometric Misfit: Beyond Validity Through Measurement Disjuncture

2026-07-20 | 3 PM EDT
Presenter(s): Crystal Luce, Ph.D., University of Colorado - Denver
Description

Quantitative measurement is often presented as objective and culturally neutral, yet Critical Quantitative scholarship argues that all measures are shaped by the assumptions, values, and contexts in which they are developed. Traditional psychometric validation seeks evidence that an instrument is reliable and valid across populations; however, when measures demonstrate poor fit, multidimensionality, or differential functioning, these findings are typically interpreted as technical limitations rather than opportunities to question the assumptions embedded within the instrument itself. Drawing on the concept of measurement disjuncture, this presentation argues that psychometric misfit can serve as evidence of culturally situated understandings of trauma rather than simply measurement error.

This study examines the Structured Trauma-Related Experiences and Symptoms Screener (STRESS), a trauma screening instrument developed primarily within Western conceptualizations of post-traumatic stress, to explore how psychometric evidence can inform critical interpretations of measurement. The study asks: (1) To what extent does the STRESS demonstrate construct validity and measurement equivalence among migrant youth and their caregivers? and (2) How can psychometric evidence be interpreted through the lens of measurement disjuncture to identify culturally embedded assumptions within quantitative measurement? Rather than asking only whether the instrument ""works,"" this study investigates what psychometric performance reveals about the relationship between standardized trauma measurement and culturally diverse lived experiences.

Using secondary data collected from a community-based mental health program serving migrant families, the study employed a comprehensive psychometric framework integrating Classical Test Theory and Item Response Theory. Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analyses examined the internal structure of the instrument, while Rasch modeling evaluated dimensionality, rating scale functioning, and item performance. Differential Item Functioning and multi-group analyses were used to investigate measurement equivalence across versions of the STRESS and participant groups. Findings were interpreted not solely as indicators of statistical adequacy but as evidence for critically examining the cultural assumptions underlying trauma measurement.

Results demonstrated variation in factor structure, item functioning, and measurement equivalence across versions of the instrument, suggesting that some aspects of trauma symptom measurement may not transfer uniformly across populations. While the study is limited by its reliance on secondary data from a single community-based organization and cannot determine the specific cultural mechanisms underlying observed differences, the findings demonstrate the value of interpreting psychometric evidence alongside critical theories of measurement rather than viewing statistical misfit exclusively as instrument deficiency.

Theoretically, this work proposes a shift in how psychometric validation is understood within Critical Quantitative Methods. Rather than treating psychometrics solely as a technical process for establishing validity, this presentation positions psychometric analyses as tools for interrogating whose experiences are represented within quantitative measures and whose experiences may remain obscured. Interpreting psychometric misfit through the lens of measurement disjuncture expands traditional approaches to validity and offers a framework for developing more culturally responsive, equitable, and theoretically informed quantitative research."

Criticality Statement

My research is situated within Critical Quantitative inquiry, which challenges the assumption that quantitative measures are objective and culturally neutral. I examine how psychometric evidence can be used not only to evaluate technical validity but also to identify culturally embedded assumptions within quantitative instruments. By integrating psychometrics with concepts such as measurement disjuncture and culturally responsive evaluation, my work seeks to expand how researchers interpret validity, equity, and representation in quantitative research.

A3. TBD

2025-07-21 | 3 PM EDT
Presenter(s): TBD
Description

TBD

Criticality Statement

B1. Are metrics destroying your mission? How standardised evaluation pathologises marginalised communities and undermines care.

2026-07-21 | 1 PM EDT
Presenter(s): Dr Hannah Griffin-James, Independent Scholar
Description

In research and evaluation certain choices are hidden or invisible. When I was a positivist I referred to these as assumptions.

In evaluation one of the key choices is how to measure change. Yet most of the organisations I consult with bring me in because of the exact same friction: their metrics feel misaligned with their mission. When choosing metrics, we rely on assumptions that can undermine social change, and it’s these that I posit are driving this lack of alignment, and ultimately undermining missions.

This is not to undervalue the effort, care and best intentions of people working to align their metrics with their mission. To be clear, these choices aren’t inherently “bad” or “wrong”. They are the result of wider societal pressures. As Giroux (2022, p.87) argues it has become ‘more difficult to translate private troubles into broader, systemic considerations’ when issues are reduced to individual responsibility. This tension is particularly pertinent for relational programmes.

In this talk, I lean on the tenets of CritQuant to explore this dichotomy and to unpack a term from philosophy that is as provocative as it is urgent: disposability.

Criticality Statement

I position my research at the boundary of evaluation and systemic advocacy to expose how institutional power dictates the trajectory of social change programmes. I use evidence to gently challenge funders and decision-makers to confront their systemic influence over what constitutes a "fact" or a "success". My work actively combats the natural urge to simplify "super wicked problems" (Rittel & Webber, 1973) into neat, artificial boxes. Defaulting to Ockham's razor - always hunting for the simplest path - safeguards institutional comfort while often derailing genuine social change. This can be seen in this morning's discussions with organisations providing photographic proof of highly sensitive workshops; a transactional perceived requirement that values quickly checking boxes over participant safety, anonymity, and trust.

B1. Rethinking "Normality", Eugenics and IQ: Historical Lineages and Critical Alternatives in Educational Assessment

2025-07-22 | 1 PM EDT
Presenter(s): Benjamin Brumley, West Chester University of Pennsylvania
Description

Background↵

Grading practices and educational and psychological assessment in U.S. have long reflected the ideologies and measurement traditions of the early 20th century, particularly the rise of norm-referenced testing. Rooted in the work of figures such as Alfred Binet and Henry Goddard, early intelligence testing established 'normality' as a central axis around which students were sorted, labeled, and stratified. This framework informed the development of academic aptitude tests, including the SAT, which Carl Brigham advanced in part to serve eugenicist goals. Over time, the logic of ranking, reification of test scores, and the ideal of objective measurement became embedded in educational culture and classroom practice. Yet, as scholars such as Stephen Jay Gould and Nicholas Lemann have argued, the use of standardized assessments often masks deep sociopolitical assumptions about ability, merit, and equity. Emerging traditions offer alternatives that challenge the norm-referenced paradigm and call for a more democratic and pedagogically sound approach to student evaluation.

↵Purpose of the Study↵

This presentation investigates how grading traditions have been historically constructed and ideologically maintained, with a focus on norm-referenced assessment as both a technical and political practice. It poses the following research questions: (1) How have norm-referenced traditions shaped grading in K-12 and higher education? and (2) What theoretical and historical critiques exist regarding the foundations of such testing models?

↵Methods↵

The study utilizes a critical historical and theoretical framework to analyze the evolution of grading systems in American education. Archival material (e.g., early intelligence testing manuals, university grading policies), foundational texts in educational psychology, and contemporary critical scholarship are triangulated to examine the epistemological and sociopolitical assumptions of grading models.

↵Discussion↵

One limitation of this study is its theoretical nature; it does not draw from empirical classroom data but rather focuses on a conceptual reexamination of educational traditions. However, its significance lies in illuminating how dominant grading models, often taken as neutral numbers, are embedded in broader ideological commitments. The findings suggest that the persistence of bell curve grading, item discrimination logic, and deficit-based models of ability is less about pedagogical efficacy and more about inherited assumptions from eugenics, psychometrics, and hierarchical social ordering. These ideologies continue to shape student outcomes, often disproportionately harming students from historically marginalized backgrounds.

↵Implications for Pedagogy, Theory, and Practice↵

The implications of this work are threefold. First, pedagogically, educators are encouraged to critically reflect on their assessment practices and consider formative, student-centered approaches that emphasize growth over ranking. Second, theoretically, the study contributes to critical assessment scholarship by foregrounding how grading is never ideologically neutral. It argues for viewing assessment as a site of ethical decision-making and sociopolitical struggle. Third, in practice, institutions should question their reliance on inherited grading systems and instead promote professional development in alternative models such as assessment for learning and anti-deficit evaluation frameworks. By doing so, educators can help dismantle micro-fascist structures in classrooms and foster more equitable, inclusive learning environments.

↵Keywords: norm-referenced testing, assessment history, grading practices, eugenics, bell curve grading.

Criticality Statement

Brumley approaches research as a critical quantitative researcher, interrogating how standardized assessments, particularly those with eugenic legacies, have historically reinforced educational inequities under the guise of objectivity. His work focuses on exposing and mitigating bias in assessment, emphasizing that quantitative methods must be historically informed and ethically deployed to challenge, rather than reproduce, systems of exclusion. Philosophically, his work is influenced by Frankfurt School philosophers like Wilhelm Reich and Hannah Arendt, whose concepts inform democratic assessment practices that resist "micro-fascism" by redistributing power and centering student agency. His current research, "Rethinking 'Normality', Eugenics and IQ: Historical Lineages and Critical Alternatives in Educational Assessment," investigates how grading traditions have been historically constructed and ideologically maintained, with a focus on norm-referenced assessment as both a technical and political practice. Through a critical historical and theoretical framework, analyzing archival material and contemporary scholarship, the study argues that dominant grading models, often perceived as neutral, are embedded in broader ideological commitments inherited from eugenics and psychometrics, disproportionately harming historically marginalized students. The implications of his work are threefold: pedagogically, encouraging critical reflection on assessment practices; theoretically, contributing to critical assessment scholarship by foregrounding the ideological nature of grading; and practically, urging institutions to question inherited grading systems and promote alternative, anti-deficit evaluation frameworks to foster equitable learning environments.

B2. TBD

2025-07-22 | 2 PM EDT
Presenter(s): TBD
Description

TBD

Criticality Statement

B2. Collaboration as a Critical Act

2026-07-21 | 2 PM EDT
Presenter(s): Work Week Attendees
Description

This working session will utilize the Work Week space to capture ideas and aspirations for future collaborations.

Criticality Statement

Critical Quantitative Methods, stands against a paradigm that presents quantification as neutral and its practitioners as interchangeable. Under that paradigm the researcher who questions the numbers works alone, and isolated work is easy to dismiss. Collaboration, then, is not a convenience for this field; it is a Critical act. This session treats this Work Week session as a site of Critical praxis: when people build together, they define rigor, method, and legitimacy on their own terms rather than borrow them from the gatekeepers. The session is the collaboration it names, turning a dispersed field into a convening space.

B3. How Different Could It Be?” Exploring Instructional Quality Effects on “Algebra for All

2025-07-22 | 3 PM EDT
Presenter(s): Jialu Fan, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities
Description

Many scholarships have stated that algebra is not only hard to learn but difficult to teach well (Wojongan et al., 2023). While a number of studies have explored this topic (e.g., Ladson-Billings et al.,1994; Sleeter, 2001; Zeichner 2002; Cochran-Smith, 2004), more investigation is needed to ascertain how specific instructional practices impact algebra achievement.

↵↵

This research is situated in institutional and structural racism. Institutional racism encompasses discrimination, unjust policies, and inequitable opportunities for the underrepresented and racially minoritized (URM) groups immortalized by institutions (institutional actors) such as schools, cooperative organizations, etc. (Zambrana et al., 2017; McGee, 2020). For example, economically disadvantaged minority students in urban schools are offered low-quality mathematics instruction (Eisenhart et al, 1993; Silver & Stein, 1996; Lee, 2012). From a broader lens, structural racism manifests through implicit or explicit rules within interrelated institutions, creating a system that upholds White supremacy and allows racism to reinvent and persist (Gee & Hicken, 2021). For example, although each school and its teachers in classrooms seem to hold their own beliefs and perspectives regarding algebra education, the racialized rules are perpetuated often through implementing certain instructional practices for certain racial populations.

↵↵

RQ1: To what extent does instructional quality correlate with students’ achievement in eighth-grade algebra?

↵

RQ1.1: How do teacher’s specific pedagogical practices (i.e., dimensions of instructional quality) affect student achievement in eighth-grade algebra?

↵

RQ1.2 What are the effects of teacher’s specific pedagogical practices (i.e., dimensions of instructional quality) on students with different racial and socioeconomic statuses in eighth-grade algebra achievement?

↵

RQ1.3: To what extent do seventh-grade MCA scores moderate the instructional quality--eighth-grade algebra achievement relationship?

↵↵

This research study employs hierarchical linear modeling to examine educational data that are predominantly nested and structured hierarchically (Hox, 1998; Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002; Anderson, 2012). The variables of race, socioeconomic status, seventh-grade MCA score, and eighth-grade MCA score are measured at the student level, while instructional quality in seven dimensions is assessed at the classroom (teacher) level. The dependent variable is the eighth-grade MCA score, which measures student achievement in eighth-grade algebra. All variables, except for instructional quality, are provided as raw data by the Minnesota Department of Education. The survey instrument is developed based on a) the seven-dimensional instructional quality framework suggested by Mu et al. (2022), b) the conceptual and operational indicators for assessing instructional quality outlined by Praetorius et al. (2018) and Mu et al. (2022) , c) informal discussion sessions with current and previous math teacher candidate supervisors at the Teacher Education Research Group (TERG) hosted by the Department of Curriculum and Instruction.

↵↵

Previous research (Teig & Luoto, 2024) exploring the relationship between instructional quality and student achievement in mathematics and science has yielded inconsistent results among the dimensions. Further, there are few large-scale studies examining algebra instruction (Litke, 2020). As a result, the field of mathematics education still lacks a sufficient understanding of the nature of algebra pedagogy and how instructional practices that support students' learning of algebra are implemented in the classroom (Litke, 2020). This study addresses gaps in instructional quality literature and adds to existing scholarship by exploring how specific instructional practices affect student achievement in eighth grade algebra.

↵↵

This study employs critical lenses and hierarchical linear modeling to examine how specific pedagogical practices in eighth-grade algebra classrooms support the learning of underrepresented and racially minoritized (URM) students, offering new perspectives to interrogate the "Algebra for All" policy. Additionally, by building on the instructional framework by Mu et al. (2022) and adapting the empirical instrument, this study aims to contribute to the emerging understanding of instructional quality in teaching algebra.

Criticality Statement

Fan operates from a broad worldview of pragmatism, focusing on research inquiry, practical data collection, and embracing multiple perspectives. Their work is deeply informed by Critical Race Theory (CRT), which they apply to uncover institutional and structural racism in large-scale investigations of instructional quality and to understand the concept of invisibility in the learning experiences of underrepresented and racially minoritized (URM) students. Fan's research, titled "How Different Could It Be? Exploring Instructional Quality Effects on 'Algebra for All'," addresses the challenge of teaching and learning algebra effectively, especially given that economically disadvantaged minority students often receive low-quality mathematics instruction due to institutional and structural racism. The study investigates how instructional quality correlates with 8th-grade algebra achievement, specifically examining the impact of pedagogical practices on student achievement across different racial and socioeconomic statuses, and how prior academic scores moderate this relationship. Employing Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) on nested educational data, Fan's work aims to fill gaps in instructional quality literature by exploring how specific practices affect 8th-grade algebra achievement, particularly for URM students. This research offers new perspectives to interrogate the "Algebra for All" policy and contributes to advanced quantitative methods by rigorously combining HLM with critical perspectives like CRT to examine equity implications in mathematics education.

B3. Critically Exploring Race and Ethnicity as Grouping Variables in Differential Item Functioning Studies

2026-07-21 | 3 PM EDT
Presenter(s): ‘Malitšitso Moteane, Ph.D., Postdoc Research Associate at Winston-Salem State
Description

Differential item functioning (DIF) analysis exists because of race. Following the Civil Rights Act of 1964, legal challenges to gatekeeper tests required ostensibly objective measures of test bias, and race and ethnicity — as protected classes — became the primary grouping variables for mandated DIF analyses. Yet the technical apparatus that emerged deliberately severed the statistical detection of differential functioning from any claim about racial bias, leaving DIF a procedure that runs on racial categories while remaining silent about what those categories are. Six decades of methodological refinement have produced increasingly sophisticated detection methods, but almost no scholarship on how the grouping variables themselves are conceptualized, defined, and constructed. A search of the field's nine leading psychometric journals from 1940 to 2022 returned no articles addressing the definition or operationalization of race or ethnicity as variables in psychometric analysis. Introductory psychometric textbooks do not define them either. The Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing invoke race and ethnicity as population-partitioning variables and as factors that may affect test performance, without defining either construct or offering a theoretical account of why they would.

This presentation reports the quantitative strand of an explanatory sequential mixed methods study examining that silence empirically. From 279 records published between 2015 and 2020 across four databases, 120 peer-reviewed DIF articles using race and/or ethnicity as grouping variables were analyzed for how these variables were conceptualized, theoretically framed, and operationalized. The corpus is disciplinarily revealing in itself: 43% public health, 38% psychology and psychiatry, and only 17% education — evidence that DIF has migrated well beyond the field that developed it, carrying its unexamined assumptions along.

The findings describe a field operating without conceptual foundations. Seventy-eight percent of articles provided no definition of race or ethnicity; only four articles across the entire corpus acknowledged their socially constructed nature. Race and ethnicity were used interchangeably within single articles, including studies that named race as the grouping variable while analyzing categories drawn from ethnicity items. Eighty-three percent took a purely exploratory approach, with no a priori hypotheses about which items would function differentially for which groups — race entered the analysis as a variable to be scanned rather than theorized. Thirty percent of articles did not state how participants were sorted into racial or ethnic groups at all. Twenty-six percent conducted only a single binary comparison, frequently collapsing all non-focal participants into a residual """"the rest"""" category. White respondents served as the reference group in all but three of the 84 studies in which they appeared, and 35 studies excluded racial or ethnic groups outright, most often citing small samples — a justification that, applied repeatedly to the same populations, functions as erasure.

The presentation situates these patterns as a critical quantitative problem rather than a reporting-quality one. When categories are neither defined nor theorized, DIF results cannot be compared, replicated, or accumulated into usable knowledge for test developers — and the practice risks reifying social categories as fixed attributes and reproducing deficit logic under the authority of statistical objectivity.

This work been twice desk-rejected by measurement's flagship journals, the session is offered as a working one. I will bring the reviewer response as data about the field's epistemic boundaries, and invite the group to help think through two questions: what minimum reporting standards for racial grouping variables would be both rigorous and adoptable, and where such an argument can find a hearing.

Criticality Statement

My research aims to center critical quantative methods. It is currently an amalgam of CRQI and QuantCrit and often links both to CRT. When examining and using quantitative methods and/or tools, I start with tracing the history of said methods and/or tools and provide an account of whether, when and how their safe use with Black populations had been established.

C1. What and Why Demographic Data are Collected: A Landscape Analysis of Research and Practice

2025-07-23 | 1 PM EDT
Presenter(s): Esther Nolton, Everstead Strategies and Tom Workman, American Institutes for Research
Description

There is a growing interest and need for organizations to capture demographic information to help characterize engagements, conduct research, or inform strategic decisions. Without this information, it can be difficult to understand the various needs, experiences, perspectives, and outcomes across diverse populations. There are many ways in which institutions collect this information but it is unclear in what ways organizations collect these data, for what reasons, and how they are being used to make their work more relevant and useful to the groups they serve.

↵↵

This landscape analysis will help outline the varied ways in which demographic data are collected and the purpose of those efforts that inform methodological decisions. It will include an analysis of published and grey literature documenting the frameworks and practices of various organizations to collect demographic information. Key informant interviews and/or focus groups will be conducted with demographers, researchers, program administrators, survey methodologists, and other professionals who study and/or make methodological decisions regarding demographic data collection to further understand the various ways and reasons demographic data are collected in different sectors, contexts, domains, and circumstances.

↵↵

A preliminary analysis of literature was completed but primary data collection is still in progress. A subset of published and grey literature were abstracted for thematic analysis and discussed among a panel of experts. In general, findings revealed an evolving set of motivations, models, practices, and gaps in knowledge and practice. No formal standards exist to guide organizations wishing to collect inclusive demographic data for administrative purposes. Researchers found varying, and at times conflicting, purposes and contexts for revisions to demographic response items specifically with the demographic characteristics of race, ethnicity, gender identification, sexual orientation, and disability.

↵↵

Like all forms of data collection, demographic data collection must be purposeful and useful to serve the anticipated needs of the effort to capture those data. Organizations wishing to collect demographic data must still address several key considerations surrounding disaggregation, representation, self-identification, and the protection of privacy and weigh various practices based on the context, purpose, and use of the data being collected. This landscape analysis will provide some helpful considerations as researchers and practitioners of demographic data collection seek to capture data that are useful and relevant to their needs.

Criticality Statement

Nolton grounds her commitment to empowerment, enfranchisement, and engagement in her identity as a daughter of Taiwanese immigrants, having experienced misconceptions about her culture and the consequences of not being accounted for in public programs and policies. With over 15 years in research and evaluation, she applies a culturally responsive and humble lens, emphasizing the inclusion and engagement of individuals and groups affected by programs and their evaluations. Her research, titled "What and Why Demographic Data are Collected: A Landscape Analysis of Research and Practice," addresses the growing need for organizations to capture demographic information to characterize engagements, conduct research, and inform strategic decisions, noting the lack of clarity on how such data are collected, for what reasons, and how they are used to serve diverse groups. This landscape analysis aims to outline the varied ways demographic data are collected and their purposes, informing methodological decisions through an analysis of published and grey literature, supplemented by key informant interviews and/or focus groups. Preliminary findings reveal evolving motivations, models, practices, and gaps, with no formal standards for inclusive demographic data collection and varying purposes for revisions to demographic characteristics like race, ethnicity, gender identification, sexual orientation, and disability. The study emphasizes that demographic data collection must be purposeful, considering disaggregation, representation, self-identification, and privacy, ultimately providing practitioners with options and researchers with a foundational framework for future research on demographic data collection.

C1. Randomization Without Erasure: Toward a Culturally Responsive Framework for Randomized Controlled Trials

2026-07-22 | 1 PM EDT
Presenter(s): Fatima Zahra, Ph.D., University of Tennessee at Knoxville
Description

Randomized controlled trials occupy a privileged position in the hierarchy of evidence, yet their epistemological foundations rest on assumptions of equivalence, universality, and context-independence that are structurally incompatible with the lived realities of marginalized communities. This paper advances a culturally responsive RCT framework that integrates QuantCrit principles, community-based participatory research ethics, and decolonial evaluation theory into experimental design, without surrendering rigor. Drawing on fieldwork in Rohingya refugee communities in Cox's Bazar, Bangladesh, I examine how conventional RCT protocols reproduce harm: through culturally invalid instrumentation, extractive randomization schemes, and outcome metrics that reflect researcher priorities over community-defined flourishing. I propose four design principles--relational validity, contextual randomization, community-anchored outcomes, and reflexive power mapping-- that reframe the RCT as a site of methodological justice. This framework has direct implications for how QuantCrit scholars design, evaluate, and publish experimental research with communities who have historically been objects of study rather than agents of inquiry.

After the world watched Derek Chauvin murder George Floyd in 2020 during what may become the most consequential global pandemic of these times, a body of literature emerged revealing the costs of discriminating based on race & ethnicity. For example, according to Huber et al. (2021), anti-semitism caused a reduction in stock prices, dividends, return on assets, and aggregate market value fell by 1.8% of German GNP because of the Holocaust. In 2021, Buckman et al. found that gender and racial inequity cost the U. S. $51 trillion from 1990 to 2019. Furthermore, Carnevale et al. (2021) found that racial and economic injustice in post secondary education cost the U. S. $956 billion annually. Though some scholars have made meaningful progress attending to gender and sexism, scholars mention the word ‘racism’ in only three articles in the Journal of Cultural Economics (Paquet, 1989; Snowball, 2005; van Haaften-Schick & Whitaker, 2022) suggesting that the socially constructed phenomenon warrants more of cultural economists’ attention. Therefore, we investigated the primary research question, what effects does anti-Black racism have on the U. S. creative economy?

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of anti-Black racism on the U. S. creative economy via three key means: (1) anti-Black racism’s affect on the size (number of workers) of the creative economy, (2) anti-Black racism’s affect on Black workers’ earnings in the creative economy, and (3) anti-Black racism’s affect on monetized creative output in the U. S. creative economy.

Methods

To answer our research questions, we used a critical race theory of statistics (QuantCrit) approach and Becker’s (1971) economics of discrimination. To test for the effects of anti-Black racism on the U. S. creative economy, we used data from the U. S. Census Bureau retrieved through IPUMS (Ruggles et al., 2024; Ruggles et al., 2025) and estimated regressions for two primary outcome variables. We first estimated linear probability models testing for the impact of identifying as Black on the likelihood of working in the arts. We estimated separate regressions for each year for which data is available from 1850 to 2022. The regressions take the form:

ArtsOccupationi=0+1*Blacki+X*Xi+i

where ArtsOccupationi is a binary variable which takes on a value of one if the respondent is in the labor force and reports an occupation we have classified as artist, Blacki is a binary variable indicating the respondent’s race is Black, and Xi is a vector of control variables. Because earnings data first became available in 1950, we estimated these regressions for each year for which data is available from 1950 to 2022. The regressions take the form:

Ln(Income)i=0+1*Blacki+X*Xi+i.

Presenting multiple sets of estimates, and then ultimately using these various estimates to calculate ranges for costs of anti-Black racism on the creative economy, allow readers discretion and flexibility in interpreting the correct cost estimate for themselves.

Discussion & Implications

Clearly, the creative sector needs to discontinue its practice of anti-Black racism. But what incentives might compel the creative sector’s transformation towards anti-racism if money has not? As McGhee (2021) pointed out, though Black citizens in the U. S. contribute to the public coffers from which nonprofit cultural organizations, especially, draw tax deductions for their corporate, foundation, and individual donors, tax exemptions, and city, county (sometimes), state, regional (sometimes), and national government funding for culture; they endure denial of access to public services, including the arts. If Black citizens do not receive equitable access to the arts, should their tax dollars go to nonprofit cultural organizations that have actively, or passive aggressively excluded them?

Criticality Statement

My research sits at the convergence of QuantCrit, critical race theory, and decolonial epistemology, rejecting the fiction that empirical methods are separable from the political conditions that produce them. I study how algorithmic systems and evaluation infrastructures reproduce racial and colonial hierarchies—particularly for communities rendered marginal by design: Rohingya refugees, Global South learners, non-English speakers navigating AI systems built on Western linguistic norms. Drawing on Connell's Southern theory, Freire's critical pedagogy, and Kirkhart and Hood's culturally responsive evaluation tradition, I treat methodology itself as a terrain of liberation or harm. The AIRELab, which I direct, operationalizes this stance institutionally, building research programs where criticality is not a posture but a design principle.

C2. Critical Analysis of School Evaluation Data from the Knowledge and Human Development Authority (KHDA) Dubai

2025-07-23 | 2 PM EDT
Presenter(s): Emily Winchip, Zayed University Abu Dhabi
Description

This research aims to analyze the quality of publicly reported data of private school quality in Dubai. School evaluations are conducted annually by the Dubai School Inspection Bureau as an accountability measure for private schools through the Knowledge and Human Development Authority (KHDA). The schools are rated on up to 102 items and assigned an overall rating. Significant importance is placed on the Overall Ratings of a school as it determines the allowed percent rise in school fees in a system of primarily for-profit private schools. The main questions of this research are: Does the school evaluation data fit a Rasch model? Which items do not fit the model? Which items are related to the overall rating, and which are not? What can this analysis tell us about the limits of the usefulness of the data?

↵↵

The items were analyzed with Rasch analysis to explore the unidimensionality of the scale, the quality of the items to contribute to the full scale, and the items’ relation to the overall rating.

↵↵

The UAE school system encompasses a wide variety of curricula, costs and offerings by schools where a majority of students are expatriates, not served by the government system, and educated in private schools, often operated for-profit. The UAE system fits a trend noted by Shafiq (2011) that Middle East countries have tended to take an incentive and accountability-based approach to overseeing education, focusing on curricular autonomy, competition between schools, and publicly available performance data intended to inform parental choice. Research about the UAE has noted the unique approach to autonomy with school inspection and has found the intended effects of inspection have been mixed and come along with side effects. Alkutich and Abukari (2018) found that Dubai teachers felt that school evaluations had informed teaching and learning but that the reports often felt superficial to the teachers and did not clearly lead to productive responses improving teachers’ work. Other research conducted in the UAE found the focus on external accountability of school evaluation to be part of a set of factors that inhibit teacher collaboration, potentially harming school improvement in the UAE (Ibrahim, 2020). The UAE is potentially part of a broader trend that education has moved away from a means to national improvement and towards a focus on individual advancement through competitive comparison between educational institutions (Robertson, 2012).

↵↵

This research is a secondary data analysis of the KHDA school evaluations including data from 200 schools in Dubai that had been inspected during the 2022-2023 school year. Each school in Dubai was evaluated on up to 102 items. The data, publicly available on the KHDA website, was coded as numbers and analyzed through Rasch analysis.

↵↵

The analysis of the school evaluation items found that a modified scale including the Overall Rating has some robustness as a scale. However, the modified scale was only found to be robust when it excluded most of the Arabic language and Islamic studies items. With these findings, questions about the validity of the scale and the usefulness of the data can be addressed.

↵↵

Analyzing the validity of a scale can mean looking at a large variety of questions of the meaning of the scale including how well a scale describes a construct, how a scale covers the important content of a construct, the statistical power of a scale to make statements about variation, the sensitivity of measures to changes, reliability of a scale across participants, the internal consistency of a scale, and generalizability across participants (Cherryholmes, 1988). This research is a basic construct validity analysis, investigating the unidimensionality of the scale and the internal validity of the scale. The findings show that the school evaluation scale includes a threat to content validity that the modified scale is robust only when it excludes items about required subjects in the UAE school system. It is notable that the tested scale including Arabic language and Islamic studies items demonstrated clearly that the overall rating was not related to these items. As whole, the items do not define a single construct and are not well represented by the overall rating.

↵References↵↵

AlKutich, M., & Abukari, A. (2018). Examining the benefit of school inspection on teaching and learning: a case study of Dubai private schools. Journal of Education and Practice, 9(5).

↵↵

Cherryholmes, C. H. (1988). Construct Validity and the Discourses of Research. American Journal of Education, 96(3), 421–457.

↵↵

Ibrahim, A. (2020). What hurts or helps teacher collaboration? Evidence from UAE schools. PROSPECTS. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-019-09459-9

↵↵

Robertson, S., Mundy, K., & Verger, A. (2012). Public private partnerships in education: New actors and modes of governance in a globalizing world. Edward Elgar Publishing.

↵↵

Shafiq, M. (2011). Do School Incentives and Accountability Measures Improve Skills in the Middle East and North Africa? The Cases of Jordan and Tunisia. Review of Middle East Economics and Finance, 7(2), 1-28. https://doi.org/10.2202/1475-3693.1279

Criticality Statement

Winchip brings a perspective shaped by her experience as a former teacher in diverse school settings and her training as a quantitative analyst, which led her to question the validity of high-stakes school evaluation methods. Her research focuses on educational measurement, specifically investigating how it affects education policy and the experiences of teachers, with an aim to develop the field of critical educational measurement by analyzing the ethics, data quality, and consequences of data use in education. She seeks to bridge the gap between numerical data and the lived experiences of people in schools, noting that numbers are often prioritized over human experiences. Her current research, "Critical Analysis of School Evaluation Data from the Knowledge and Human Development Authority (KHDA) Dubai," aims to analyze the quality of publicly reported data on private school quality in Dubai. This study uses Rasch analysis to explore the unidimensionality and internal validity of the school evaluation scale, and how items relate to the overall rating. The analysis of data from 200 schools inspected in 2022-2023 revealed that a modified scale, excluding most Arabic language and Islamic studies items, showed some robustness, but the overall rating was not clearly related to these required subjects. This finding raises questions about the validity of the scale and the usefulness of the data, highlighting a threat to content validity. Winchip's research contributes a procedure for analyzing the quality of high-stakes school evaluations, providing a model for secondary data analysis to understand school evaluation practices globally.

C2. Counting the costs: Investigating the effects of anti-Black racism on the U. S. creative economy

2026-07-22 | 2 PM EDT
Presenter(s): Richard Paulsen, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Sport Management, University of Michigan; antonio c. cuyler, ph.d., Professor of Music in Entrepreneurship & Leadership, University of Michigan
Description

Background

Purpose of the Study

Methods

ArtsOccupationi=0+1*Blacki+X*Xi+i

Ln(Income)i=0+1*Blacki+X*Xi+i.

Discussion & Implications

Criticality Statement

The central question of my research agenda is, "in what ways can the creative sector ensure and protect the creative justice of those historically and continuously casted as the least and most vulnerable among us?" To this end my research infuses curiosity about arts administration, entrepreneurship, leadership, & management education and practice, creative justice, cultural policy, cultural politics, and experiential learning to uncover the ways in which people access, consume, create, and disseminate culture, or not. I have published 2 books, one edited volume, one co-edited volume, 28 peer reviewed journal articles, and 8 book chapters. My most recent book, Achieving Creative Justice in the U. S. Creative Sector, operationalizes access, diversity, equity, and inclusion (ADEi) to manifest creative justice for a range of people across a variety of positionalities across the system that comprises the U. S. creative sector.

C3. TBD

2025-07-23 | 3 PM EDT
Presenter(s): TBD
Description

TBD

Criticality Statement

C3. Making Quantitative Methods "Stick": What Educational Psychology Can Contribute to Critical Quantitative Pedagogy

2026-07-22 | 3 PM EDT
Presenter(s): Precious Hardy, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Psychology, Harris-Stowe State University
Description

Quantitative methods courses are frequently experienced by students as intimidating, procedural, and disconnected from meaningful learning (Onwuegbuzie & Wilson, 2003; Macher et al., 2012). Within higher education, research methods and statistics instruction often emphasizes formula memorization and procedural execution while paying less attention to the cognitive and psychological processes that shape how learners engage with complex quantitative ideas (Garfield & Ben-Zvi, 2007). Existing conversations within critical quantitative pedagogy have importantly examined issues of equity, representation, power, and access in quantitative inquiry (Gutiérrez, 2013; Skovsmose, 2013); however, less attention has been given to how insights from educational psychology and learning science may contribute to more cognitively accessible and humanizing approaches to quantitative teaching and learning. This presentation draws on educational psychology, cognitive load theory (Sweller, 1988), and learning science to consider how quantitative methods instruction may be redesigned to support durable learning and student engagement, particularly within HBCU contexts where expanding access to quantitative literacy and research participation remains critically important.

The purpose of this conceptual work is to explore how instructional design, classroom environment, and learner self-beliefs shape students’ experiences within undergraduate statistics and research methods courses. In particular, this work asks: (1) How do students experience quantitative learning environments that emphasize conceptual understanding over memorization? (2) How might principles from educational psychology and learning science contribute to critical quantitative pedagogy? and (3) What instructional conditions appear to support students’ confidence, engagement, and retention of quantitative concepts? This work is informed by recurring classroom observations, informal student conversations, and formal course evaluation feedback gathered across undergraduate psychology statistics and research methods courses taught at a HBCU.

As an in-progress pedagogical and conceptual inquiry, this presentation does not report findings from a formal empirical study. Rather, the project draws from reflective teaching practices, classroom observations, student feedback, and the emerging development of a conceptual framework connecting educational psychology to quantitative pedagogy. Across courses, students have frequently described quantitative concepts as more understandable, meaningful, and “stickier” when instruction emphasizes conceptual reasoning, real-world application, visual organization, collaborative discussion, and psychologically supportive learning environments. These observations have motivated the development of an emerging framework centered on cognitive accessibility, learner meaning-making, and durable quantitative learning.

As the project develops, empirical stages may include qualitative and mixed-methods approaches designed to examine how students experience quantitative learning environments. Potential methods could include student interviews, classroom observations, reflective journals, course artifact analysis, and surveys examining students’ perceptions of quantitative learning, confidence, engagement, and cognitive load.

The work is presently exploratory, reflective, and grounded primarily in instructional experience rather than formalized empirical data collection. As such, conclusions remain tentative and developmental. At the same time, the project is significant because it seeks to bridge educational psychology, learning science, and critical quantitative pedagogy in ways that may expand conversations about who succeeds in quantitative spaces and why. Rather than framing quantitative difficulty solely as an issue of learner ability, this work considers how instructional design and educational environments may either support or constrain students’ engagement with quantitative thinking.

This talk has implications for pedagogy, theory, and practice. Pedagogically, it encourages quantitative instructors to move beyond procedural memorization toward approaches that emphasize conceptual understanding, psychological safety, and meaningful inquiry. Theoretically, it suggests that educational psychology and learning science may offer important contributions to critical quantitative pedagogy, particularly in understanding how cognition, motivation, and classroom experiences interact within quantitative learning environments. Practically, this work calls for more humanizing and cognitively accessible approaches to teaching research methods and statistics, especially for students historically underserved within quantitative educational spaces.

Criticality Statement

My research connects to critical theory through its focus on how educational systems and learning environments shape learners’ experiences with complex thinking, effort, and perceptions of ability. I am particularly interested in challenging deficit-oriented interpretations of student performance by examining how cognition, motivation, and instructional contexts interact to support or constrain learning. My work considers how inequities in access to supportive, psychologically meaningful, and cognitively accessible learning environments may influence students’ academic trajectories.

D1. Global Majority Arts Administrators, Arts Educators, & Artists in the U. S.: What are their Cultural Policy Priorities?

2025-07-24 | 1 PM EDT
Presenter(s): antonio c. cuyler, University of Michigan
Description

Extant literature (Besana and Esposito 2022; Caust 2019; Elpus 2016; Novak-Leonard and Skaggs 2021; Taylor 2022) has not centered or operationalized global majority arts administrators, arts educators, and artists’ community cultural wealth (Dragićević Šešić 2024; Yosso 2015) to inform the development of a national arts advocacy agenda based on their policy priorities. By centering global majority creatives in this study, we reveal new knowledge critical to cultivating a thriving anti-racist creative sector in the U. S., specifically as it relates to the development of a national arts advocacy agenda. In addition, this study’s results advance extant knowledge by uncovering global majority creatives’ policy preferences when advocating for arts and culture which aligns with the Arts Administrators of Color Network’s (AAC) four-year strategic plan.

↵

We investigated two research questions in this descriptive research study. First, what policy issues matter most to global majority arts administrators, arts educators, and artists when advocating for arts and culture? Second, do differences exist in the prioritization of policy issues based on the intersectional demographic profiles of global majority arts administrators, artists, and arts educators?

↵↵

CRT theorized that white Americans structurally and systemically built racial caste into U. S. society to produce observable negative disparate outcomes for Black Americans based on 246 years of slavery, followed by more than a century of racial terror and segregation after the U. S. civil war, and before civil rights legislation in 1964, 1965, and 1968. CRT inspired Asian (AsianCrit), Hispanic/Latine (LatCrit), Indigenous (TribalCrit), and Jewish (HebCrit) scholars in developing critical race theories that enabled their understanding of the ways that they, too, experience negative disparate outcomes based on the U. S.’ racial caste system. Crenshaw (1989) articulated intersectionality to theorize the ways that race intersects with non-racial social identities such as affectional orientation (QueerCrit), class (ClassCrit), disability (DisCrit), and gender (FemCrit) to amplify the impacts of observable negative disparate outcomes by two, three, and four fold. Given these theories, we assume that global majority arts administrators, arts educators, and artists have embodied and lived racialized experiences because of enduring racism in U. S. society. Racism has forced global majority creatives to develop community cultural wealth (Yosso, 2015) to lead a flourishing career in the creative sector.

↵↵

To analyze the data, we used descriptive statistics to report means and sums using a critical race theories analytic framework. To answer the second research question, we used Crenshaw’s (1989) intersectionality (ClassCrit, DisCrit, FemCrit, and QueerCrit) as the analytic framework revealing some differences in the prioritization of policy issues based on global majority arts administrators, arts educators, and artists’ demographic profiles.

↵↵

Across two iterations of data collection, this study revealed that global majority creatives prioritized nine policy issues that will inform the development of a national arts advocacy agenda. These policies included: federal funding for arts education, federal funding for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), city/county funding for culture, state funding for culture, protecting affirmative action, access, diversity, equity, and inclusion; tax fairness for artists, access to lifelong arts education, federal funding for the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), and affordable housing. While we expected respondents to rank national and subnational government funding highly, the rankings surprised us because they took precedence over policies such as climate change, democracy, Medicare for all, student loan debt relief, and universal basic income.

↵↵

Given that a kakistocratic administration has given rise to the politics of cruelty, the most important implication for this study is that it manifests an evidence-based approach to policy advocacy that can improve the lives of those caste in U. S. society as the least among us.

Criticality Statement

Cuyler grounds his research in critical theories like Afrofuturism, Critical Race Theory (CRT), and Intersectionality, asserting that all research inherently reflects human biases and subjectivities. As an anti-positivist interpretivist, he challenges the concept of "objectivity" as a characteristic of White supremacy culture, advocating for its scholarly interrogation. His research agenda focuses on how the creative sector can ensure and protect the creative justice of historically marginalized individuals, integrating various fields to explore access to arts and culture. His study, "Global Majority Arts Administrators, Arts Educators, & Artists in the U. S.: What are their Cultural Policy Priorities?", addresses a gap in literature by centering the community cultural wealth of global majority arts administrators, arts educators, and artists to inform a national arts advocacy agenda. This descriptive study, utilizing CRT and intersectionality, identified nine key policy issues prioritized by global majority creatives, including federal and state funding for arts and culture, federal funding for arts education, protecting affirmative action, and affordable housing, contributing significantly to Critical Quantitative (QuantCrit) methods by empowering marginalized voices in policy advocacy within the U.S. creative sector.

D1. Developing and Evaluating a QuantCrit-Informed Pedagogical Model for Undergraduate Research Methods: A Work in Progress

2026-07-23 | 1 PM EDT
Presenter(s): Falynn Thompson, Ph.D.
Description

Quantitative research informs educational, healthcare, criminal justice, and public policy decisions that affect millions of people. However, quantitative methods are not inherently objective or neutral; rather, they are developed, applied, and interpreted within social, political, and historical contexts. Scholars have demonstrated that quantitative methods have historically been used to reinforce racial hierarchies and continue to perpetuate inequities when researchers fail to account for systematic factors influencing observed outcomes. Simultaneously, racially minoritized individuals remain underrepresented in research-intensive and STEM-related fields and continue to encounter barriers to undergraduate research participation, including stereotypes, microaggressions, financial constraints, limited access to mentors, and feelings of exclusion (Pierszalowski et al., 2021; Schwartz, 2012). Although undergraduate research participation has been consistently linked to improved research self-efficacy, academic success, and persistence in research careers, no empirical studies, to our knowledge, have examined whether teaching students critical approaches to quantitative research influences these outcomes. Quantitative Critical Race Theory (QuantCrit) offers a promising framework for preparing students to critically evaluate and produce quantitative evidence while promoting equity and social justice, yet its application has remained largely conceptual and has rarely been incorporated into undergraduate quantitative methods instruction.

This study seeks to develop, implement, and evaluate QuantCrit-informed pedagogical enhancements within an introductory undergraduate research methods and statistics course at a Historically Black College and University (HBCU). Specifically, the study will examine whether QuantCrit-informed instruction improves students' psychological outcomes (research self-efficacy, statistics anxiety, and critical quantitative consciousness), academic outcomes (exam performance, course grades, and enrollment in advanced research methods courses), and persistence in research pathways (research laboratory participation, graduate school intentions, and interest in research-intensive careers). The study also seeks to develop an empirically informed QuantCrit instructional protocol that can be adapted by instructors across diverse higher education contexts.

The study will employ a three-arm quasi-experimental design conducted over two academic years across six sections of an introductory Research Methods and Statistics course (N ≈ 120). Students will receive either (a) standard instruction, (b) a QuantCrit-light condition incorporating asset-based examples and instructional materials, or (c) a fully QuantCrit-informed pedagogical approach that integrates critical reflection throughout existing lessons while preserving the core statistical curriculum and learning objectives. Students will complete pretest, posttest, and one-year follow-up surveys assessing research self-efficacy, statistics anxiety, critical quantitative consciousness, and research career interest. Academic performance will be evaluated using common examination items, course grades, and registrar data documenting enrollment in advanced research courses. Multilevel modeling will estimate intervention effects while accounting for students nested within course sections. Focus groups, classroom observations, and semi-structured interviews with students and instructors will provide complementary qualitative evidence regarding implementation fidelity, active instructional components, and participants' experiences.

Guided by QuantCrit, Freire's (2021) theory of critical consciousness, and Yosso's (2005) Community Cultural Wealth framework, this study hypothesizes that QuantCrit-informed pedagogy will strengthen students' critical understanding of quantitative research, increase research self-efficacy, reduce statistics anxiety, and promote greater engagement in undergraduate research and research-related career pathways. By moving beyond traditional approaches to research methods instruction, the intervention seeks to cultivate students' ability to critically evaluate quantitative evidence while fostering a stronger sense of belonging and agency within quantitative research spaces.

This project represents, to our knowledge, the first empirical examination of QuantCrit-informed pedagogy within undergraduate research methods education. Findings have the potential to advance QuantCrit theory, inform psychology and STEM education, strengthen the undergraduate research pipeline, and provide educators with an evidence-based instructional model for integrating critical quantitative literacy into existing research methods curricula. Ultimately, the project seeks to broaden participation in quantitative research and contribute to the preparation of a more diverse generation of researchers equipped to produce equitable and socially responsible research.

Criticality Statement

My research is generally situated within critical theory, which involves questioning and critiquing dominant practices, narratives, and perspectives that are often perceived as normative yet can perpetuate harm for marginalized communities. This work begins with my own process of learning, unlearning, and relearning assumptions and beliefs. Through this process, I seek to identify and expose systems, practices, and discourses that contribute to injustice, share knowledge that challenges these norms, and explore ways to confront harmful systems. Ultimately, my goal is to contribute to efforts that empower individuals and communities who are disproportionately affected by these forms of harm and marginalization.

D2. Reframing Perception as Structure: A Critical Quantitative Analysis of Schooling, Risk, and Postsecondary Access in the NLSY97

2025-07-24 | 2 PM EDT
Presenter(s): Catherina Villafuerte, University of Connecticut
Description

This study provides a critical reconceptualization of student perception data, reframing these measures as structurally embedded indicators of institutional opportunity and systemic inequity. Using data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997 (NLSY97), the analysis investigates how adolescent perceptions of school climate, peer norms, and structural risks, as reported in 1997, predict subsequent postsecondary enrollment outcomes by 2002. Contrary to dominant approaches that position student perception as merely subjective or attitudinal, this study employs Critical Race Theory (CRT), Intersectionality, and Structural Theories of Schooling to argue that perceptions reflect institutional realities shaped by power, race, and social positionality. Through this approach, perception data are treated not as individual-level psychological constructs but as collective testimonies reflecting systemic educational conditions.

↵↵

The study is guided by two primary research questions. First, it seeks to determine to what extent students' perceptions of school climate, peer norms, and structural risk predict differential patterns of postsecondary enrollment. Second, it explores how these predictive relationships vary according to students' intersecting racial, ethnic, and gender identities. The analytic sample comprises over 8,500 respondents who provided complete data on the selected perception constructs and demographic variables. Composite indices measuring school climate, peer norms, and structural risk were created through exploratory factor analyses and standardized to facilitate multinomial logistic regression modeling. The dependent variable was categorically defined, differentiating full-time, part-time, ambiguous forms of postsecondary enrollment, and non-enrollment.

↵↵

Results substantiate the conceptual reframing proposed in the study, confirming that adolescent perceptions significantly predict postsecondary enrollment trajectories. Students who perceived more supportive school climates and affirming peer norms experienced increased odds of full-time enrollment in four-year colleges. Conversely, perceptions of heightened structural risk were significantly associated with decreased access to these educational pathways. Notably, these relationships were not uniform across social identities. The association between school climate perceptions and college enrollment was moderated by gender, with female students experiencing relatively diminished protective effects. Additionally, peer norms held greater predictive significance for mixed-race and non-Black, non-Hispanic students, suggesting variations in how peer environments intersect with institutional structures. The detrimental impact of structural risk perceptions was particularly pronounced among Black students, reinforcing the racialized dimension of systemic educational inequity.

↵↵

Although the analytic scope of this investigation focuses on a single outcome year, its contributions extend beyond empirical modeling to encompass methodological and theoretical advances within critical quantitative scholarship. By intentionally reframing student perception data through justice-oriented epistemologies, this research challenges traditional quantitative approaches that overlook systemic and structural explanations in favor of individual-level narratives. Identity variables, typically treated as covariates or statistical controls, are repositioned as critical sites for structural examination, allowing for richer interpretations of how race, ethnicity, and gender interact within educational contexts.

↵↵

The study carries significant implications for educational policy, institutional practice, and methodological frameworks. Educational systems should integrate student perception measures into accountability and reform agendas as structural diagnostics capable of illuminating inequities often obscured by standardized metrics. In terms of theory, the research contributes substantively to critical quantitative methodologies by demonstrating practical strategies for aligning empirical rigor with justice-centered frameworks. Pedagogically, the study offers a detailed methodological exemplar, guiding scholars toward meaningful integration of critical theory into quantitative analyses. Ultimately, this research affirms the value of centering student voices as structurally meaningful indicators of institutional conditions, calling for a paradigmatic shift in how educational equity and access are conceptualized, measured, and addressed.

Criticality Statement

Villafuerte approaches research from a justice-oriented epistemological stance, viewing knowledge production as deeply embedded in systems of power, colonial legacies, and racial capitalism. She rejects the neutrality of educational institutions, instead examining how they reproduce structural inequities and silence marginalized voices, prioritizing methodologies that center lived experience and dismantle systems of exclusion. Her research is grounded in critical theory, drawing from Critical Race Theory, decolonial thought, and structural analyses to expose how dominant ideologies perpetuate racial and epistemic hierarchies within research design and policy. In her study, "Reframing Perception as Structure: A Critical Quantitative Analysis of Schooling, Risk, and Postsecondary Access in the NLSY97," Villafuerte critically reconceptualizes student perception data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997 (NLSY97), arguing that these perceptions reflect institutional realities shaped by power, race, and social positionality. The analysis, involving over 8,500 respondents, found that adolescent perceptions of school climate, peer norms, and structural risks significantly predicted postsecondary enrollment trajectories by 2002. Specifically, students who perceived more supportive school climates and affirmed peer norms had increased odds of full-time enrollment in four-year colleges. At the same time, perceptions of heightened structural risk were associated with decreased access. Notably, these relationships varied by identity: the protective effects of school climate perceptions were diminished for female students, peer norms held greater predictive significance for mixed-race and non-Black, non-Hispanic students, and the detrimental impact of structural risk perceptions was particularly pronounced among Black students. This research advances critical quantitative scholarship by challenging traditional approaches that overlook systemic explanations, repositioning identity variables as central structural dimensions, and advocating for student voices as meaningful indicators of institutional conditions.

D2. Enacting Critical Quantitative Methods: Researchers Describing Practices

2026-07-23 | 2 PM EDT
Presenter(s): David Sul, Ed.D., Sul & Associates International; University of San Francisco; University of the Virgin Islands
Description

In this participatory working session, each researcher describes one concrete practice they use to do quantitative work critically, a technique, a choice, or a habit, with newcomers invited to name a practice they are still figuring out. Contributed in parallel to a shared space and then read back to the room, these accounts assemble the field's own repertoire of Critical Quantitative practices, built by the people who use them.

Criticality Statement

D3. Always Been That Way A conversation on intentional and ethical selection of within- and, or, between-group quantitative analyses

2025-07-24 | 3 PM EDT
Presenter(s): Shannon Casey, Institute for Clinical and Translational Research at the University of Wisconsin - Madison
Description

With every build or reiteration of a healthcare or education program, program staff, evaluators, and methodologists evaluate the design of the program for audiences that vary on many characteristics. Though we consider intersectionality, which we all understand intuitively and in practice, it can be particularly challenging to understand and evaluate the unique effects of a program designed for a group that shares a characteristic (e.g., sufferers of a certain illness, trainees in a specific program, users of a particular service) but also variable on other important characteristics (e.g., age, ability status, geography, cultural belonging, trauma background). Fifty years or more of research by statistical and cultural experts (e.g., Janet Helms 1992; Matusmoto & Van de Vijver, 2010), has identified conditions under which comparisons across groups or deep dives within groups reflect the nature of the research question.

↵↵

Too often, working in high-paced and high-stakes environments, evaluation defaults to what has been done before. While a reasonable approach, we may miss important reflection on possible harms to communities when groups are compared, or possible missed opportunities when groups are not compared. How do we make those decisions about comparing across or within groups? How do those comparisons reflect in the reports we write or the graphics we share?

↵↵

This session will introduce key questions for reflection as a research team as you build and design your evaluation research, including methodological considerations (e.g., subgroup sample size, measurement equivalent, confounds) and group differences (e.g., lingualism, identity, group norms). We will evaluate and observe key points made by experts who study and advocate for ""within"" or ""between"" group analyses, looking critically at this impactful and sometimes rushed decision. Multiple examples from personal experience doing research with diverse groups and from the literature, across the research trajectory from study design to reporting, will be shared. We will discuss the compelling new, but sometimes fraught, territory of Artificial Intelligence and Language Learning Models. We will work towards identifying which approaches fit better for our own unique research questions. We will consider the risks and rewards of doing both between and within group comparisons in the same design. Attendees will be invited into small groups to discuss the challenges inherent in their own work and commit to some small improvement aimed at continuous quality improvement for their own teams.

↵↵

We all know the ""right"" answer is not ""it's always been that way"" but rather a thoughtful and connected collaborative conversation of how we maximize our ability to make inference and also maximize our safety for all who participate. You are invited to explore openly but critically your own professional approach, for which there may not be a “right answer,” but rather the most appropriate answer for the critical impact you are wishing to have.

↵↵References↵

Helms, J. E. (1992). Why is there no study of cultural equivalence in standardized cognitive ability testing?. American psychologist, 47(9), 1083.

↵

Matsumoto, D., & Van de Vijver, F. J. (Eds.). (2010). Cross-cultural research methods in psychology. Cambridge University Press.

Criticality Statement

Casey believes researchers have an obligation to address diversity and culture to support equity, advocating for comprehensive, sustainable solutions through interdisciplinary collaboration and sophisticated methodological knowledge. Her research critically examines systems that perpetuate oppression, collaborating with healthcare, education, and social researchers to promote community engagement, partnership building, and participatory, collaborative methodologies that reduce inequities. In her presentation, "Always Been That Way: A conversation on intentional and ethical selection of within- and, or, between-group quantitative analyses," Casey addresses the common practice in program evaluation of defaulting to past methods without critically considering the potential harms or missed opportunities when comparing or not comparing diverse groups. The session aims to guide research teams in making intentional decisions about within- or between-group analyses, discussing methodological considerations, group differences, and the role of Artificial Intelligence, while encouraging personal and collective reflection to prevent systematic harms when cultural confounds are overlooked.

D3. Critical quantitative methods: what is to be done?

2026-07-23 | 3 PM EDT
Presenter(s): Benjamin Brumley, Ph.D., West Chester University
Description

TBD

Criticality Statement

E1. From Access to Equity: Mapping Policy Solutions for Anti-Ableism in Higher Education

2025-07-25 | 1 PM EDT
Presenter(s): Jessica Lopez, Arizona State University STEM Program Evaluation Lab
Description

While disabled students represent approximately 19% of the undergraduate population, their graduation rate lags nearly 20 percentage points behind their non-disabled peers (NCES, 2023). This disparity is often framed as an individual deficit rather than the result of systemic inequities shaped by policy, institutional design, and epistemic erasure. Dominant frameworks in higher education rely on compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) rather than interrogating the ableism embedded in institutional policies, pedagogies, and structures. Critical Disability Studies (Dolmage, 2017) has made visible the cultural and structural dimensions of ableism, but there is limited research that bridges these insights with large-scale policy analysis. This presentation addresses that gap through a critical, data-driven analysis of disability-related higher education laws across the U.S., using the findings to develop an anti-ableist policy agenda grounded in both empirical evidence and disabled student experience.

↵↵

Drawing from disability justice principles and critical quantitative frameworks, we sought to recenter disabled student needs and reframe disability policy not as compliance-based, but as a site of cultural transformation. The guiding research questions were: (1) How can an anti-ableist framework improve accessibility and success rates in higher education? (2) What are the most effective policy and curriculum-based strategies for fostering inclusion for disabled students?

↵↵

Our methodology included a 50-state legal review of publicly available higher education codes, statutes, and administrative policies that explicitly reference disability or accommodations. Each state's data was coded to quantify the number of relevant laws, identify the presence or absence of protections for disabled students, and analyze the thematic focus of each law (e.g., digital accessibility, inclusive programs, faculty training). This dataset was then layered with qualitative insights from a literature review. The combination of content analysis and quantitative state-by-state comparisons enabled us to identify patterns of neglect, innovation, and regional disparity.

↵↵

Findings revealed that over one-third of U.S. states have zero state-level protections for disabled students in higher education beyond federal requirements. States with stronger protections often had mandates for digital accessibility, emergency planning, or inclusive higher ed programs for students with intellectual disabilities, but lacked mechanisms for accountability, cultural change, or structural reform. Based on these findings, we developed 13 policy recommendations spanning institutional, state, and federal levels.

↵↵

A limitation of this study is that laws and policies are constantly evolving, and publicly available legislative databases may not capture all relevant measures. However, the broader contribution of this work lies in its integration of critical disability theory with policy mapping and institutional critique. It also contributes to critical quantitative methods by offering a model of how legal data and state policy analysis can support equity-driven agendas.

↵↵

This research has several implications for practice and pedagogy. First, it provides a concrete framework for disability-inclusive institutional change that goes beyond ADA compliance. Second, it highlights the need to embed anti-ableism into the teaching of higher education policy and governance. Finally, it invites scholars and practitioners to view policy as a site of cultural production, where what is written into law shapes who is recognized, resourced, and respected on campus. In this way, critical policy analysis becomes a tool not only for critique, but for collective redesign.

Criticality Statement

Lopez approaches research as a tool for systemic change, driven by a worldview rooted in disability justice that emphasizes interdependence, access, and the lived experiences of marginalized communities. As a disabled Latina scholar and organizer, she believes data should serve those most impacted, translating structural critiques into practical tools for policy and educational reform by interrogating systems for what they exclude and fail to imagine. Her research challenges dominant compliance-based frameworks in higher education policy by interrogating how ableism is embedded in institutional practices, laws, and norms, using research to expose and disrupt these systemic inequities. Drawing from intersectionality, she explores how disability interacts with race, class, and gender in shaping educational access and success, framing disability as a sociopolitical condition. In her presentation, "From Access to Equity: Mapping Policy Solutions for Anti-Ableism in Higher Education," Lopez addresses the disparity where disabled students, approximately 19% of the undergraduate population, lag nearly 20 percentage points behind their non-disabled peers in graduation rates. Through a 50-state legal review of higher education codes and policies, her study revealed that over one-third of U.S. states have zero state-level protections for disabled students beyond federal requirements, and even states with stronger protections often lack accountability mechanisms for cultural or structural reform. Based on these findings, 13 policy recommendations were developed to foster inclusion and improve accessibility. This work advances Critical Quantitative Methods by integrating critical disability theory with policy mapping and institutional critique, offering a framework for disability-inclusive institutional change that moves beyond mere ADA compliance and repositions disabled students as critical knowledge producers within equity-driven evaluation.

E1. Holding the Assessment Accountable: A QuantCrit Approach to Latent Profile Analysis of Science Assessment Experience

2026-07-24 | 1 PM EDT
Presenter(s): Cari Herrmann Abell, BSCS Science Learning
Description

Background

Science assessments increasingly aim to engage students in tasks that are grounded in real-world problems that connect to their lives and communities, yet students' experiences of these assessments remain underexplored. Assessments have historically privileged dominant forms of knowing and doing (Randall, 2021), with construct definitions that tend to keep less mainstream epistemologies invisible. When inequities in student experience emerge, conventional quantitative approaches risk locating the problem within students and their demographic characteristics rather than within the assessments themselves. QuantCrit principles (Castillo & Strunk, 2024) offer a framework for quantitative research that inverts this framing, keeping the assessment rather than the student as the primary object of inquiry.

Purpose

This study asks: How can we measure student science assessment experience in ways that keep the assessment rather than students' demographic characteristics as the primary object of inquiry? We present findings from a Latent Profile Analysis (LPA) of the Student Assessment Experience Survey (SAES), an instrument comprised of 13 Likert-scale items and two open-response items, designed to capture how students experience science assessment across five dimensions: Comprehension and Accessibility, Preparedness, Interest, Local and Global Relevance, and Personal Connection and Developing Agency.

Methods

Participants included 1,362 middle and high school students from schools across the United States who completed the SAES immediately following a science assessment task as part of two research projects. Guided by QuantCrit principles, our analytic approach deliberately inverts conventional quantitative framing: rather than treating demographic characteristics as predictors of student experience, we first identified distinct profiles of assessment experience and only then examined whether demographic patterns emerged within those profiles. We conducted exploratory factor analysis (EFA) on a randomly split half-sample and confirmed the five-factor structure using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on the held-out half. We then estimated latent factor scores for each student and used LPA to identify subgroups with distinct patterns of experience across the five dimensions. Model selection was guided by BIC, entropy, the Bootstrap Likelihood Ratio Test, and minimum profile size.

Discussion

The LPA identified four distinct engagement profiles forming a fanning pattern. All four profiles clustered tightly on Comprehension and Accessibility and Preparedness, the structural dimensions of assessment experience, but diverged substantially on Interest, Local and Global Relevance, and Personal Connection and Agency, the dimensions most tied to students' identities and lived experiences. Critically, the profiles did not sort students by race, gender, grade level, or English language background, supporting the interpretation that variation across profiles reflects how specific assessment tasks met or did not meet students where they are, rather than fixed characteristics of particular student groups. This finding holds the assessment accountable rather than the student. Limitations include the national-scale framing of the assessment design decisions, which may not capture community-specific needs, and the ongoing need to validate the SAES across broader populations and contexts.

Implications for Practice

These results have direct implications for assessment design: structural features of tasks can be more consistently achieved through careful design, while affective and identity-linked dimensions likely require intentional, community-specific work. These findings suggest that student experience data, not just academic outcome data, should inform how assessments are revised and adapted. The QuantCrit analytic approach offers a replicable model for researchers conducting large-scale quantitative studies who wish to keep assessments rather than students as the primary focus of inquiry. We invite dialogue from participants about how QuantCrit principles can be further developed and applied in latent variable modeling and other quantitative methods contexts.

Castillo, W., & Strunk, K. K. (2024). How to QuantCrit: Applying Critical Race Theory to Quantitative Data in Education (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003429968 Randall, J. (2021). “Color-neutral” is not a thing: Redefining construct definition and representation through a justice-oriented critical antiracist lens. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 40(4), 82-90.

Criticality Statement

Our research program is situated within critical frameworks that center equity, justice, and asset-based perspectives in science education assessment. Across our work, we challenge traditional assessment paradigms that locate deficits within students by interpreting student responses as evidence of developing reasoning rather than the absence of knowledge, and by positioning students as co-designers and knowledge producers rather than passive subjects of measurement. We draw on QuantCrit principles (Castillo & Strunk, 2024) to ensure that large-scale quantitative analyses keep assessment design rather than student demographics as the primary object of inquiry. More broadly, our work is oriented toward building a validity argument for phenomenon-based science assessment that takes seriously the consequences of testing for students whose identities and epistemologies have historically been excluded from what counts as scientific knowledge.

E2. Beyond the Black Box: Interrogating the Theoretical Foundations of AI in Performance Management for a More Equitable Future

2025-07-25 | 2 PM EDT
Presenter(s): Nathalie Salles-Olivier, University of the Virgin Islands
Description

Background↵

The integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) into performance management (PM) systems is rapidly transforming the modern workplace. While proponents argue that AI can enhance efficiency and objectivity, critical scholars raise concerns about the potential for these systems to perpetuate and amplify existing inequalities, particularly along gender lines. The literature reveals a significant gap in our understanding of the theoretical foundations and worldviews underpinning these AI-driven PM systems. This study, therefore, draws on critical theory, feminist theory, and intersectionality to provide a more nuanced and holistic understanding of this complex issue.

↵Purpose of the study↵

The purpose of this study is to critically examine the theoretical foundations of AI-driven performance management and its impact on gender equity in the tech industry. The central research question is: How do the theoretical underpinnings and authorial worldviews of AI-driven performance management systems, as reflected in the literature from 2019 to 2024, contribute to or mitigate gender inequity in the tech industry? This study seeks to move beyond a simplistic "good vs. bad" dichotomy and instead explores the inherent tensions and contradictions within this socio-technical phenomenon.

↵Methods↵

This study employs a novel methodological approach centered on the development and application of a bespoke AI assistant for a systematic literature review of scholarly articles, conference proceedings, and industry reports published between 2019 and 2024. This specialized AI is designed to analyze the corpus by: (1) identifying the presence or notable absence of explicit theoretical frameworks and authorial positionality statements (worldviews); (2) mapping the research methodologies utilized; and (3) evaluating the alignment between the stated theories and methods. This AI-driven analysis will be supplemented by a critical bibliometric review to map the geographical and institutional origins of the research, providing context to the dominant paradigms. This innovative, dual-pronged method allows for a nuanced critical discourse analysis of the underlying assumptions shaping the discourse on AI in performance management.

↵Discussion↵

The preliminary findings suggest that while there is a growing awareness of the potential for bias in AI, there is a lack of a robust theoretical framework for understanding and addressing these issues from a social justice perspective. The discussion will focus on the limitations of purely technical or legalistic approaches to fairness and the need for a more critical and intersectional lens. It will also explore the "double-edged sword" nature of AI in PM, highlighting both its potential to mitigate certain forms of bias and its risk of creating new, more insidious forms of discrimination.

↵Implications for pedagogy, theory, or practice↵

This research has significant implications. For pedagogy, it provides a model for teaching how to build and utilize AI tools for critical inquiry, moving beyond using AI as a simple search tool. For theory, it introduces a new method for conducting theoretical analysis at scale and contributes to a more critical understanding of AI's impact on work. For practice, it offers a framework for designing and implementing AI-driven PM systems that are more equitable and human-centered.

Criticality Statement

Salles-Olivier brings a pragmatic and critical worldview shaped by her French-American background, international business experience, and pursuit of a PhD in Creative Leadership at a Caribbean HBCU. She is committed to bridging theory and practice, driven by a desire to promote social justice and equity for women and marginalized groups in the workplace. Her research is situated within critical theory, drawing from critical pedagogy, feminist theory, and intersectionality, to examine the social and ethical implications of technology, particularly AI, in the workplace, aiming to challenge power dynamics and systemic biases in organizational systems like performance management. Her current research, "Beyond the Black Box: Interrogating the Theoretical Foundations of AI in Performance Management for a More Equitable Future," critically examines how the theoretical underpinnings and authorial worldviews of AI-driven performance management systems, as reflected in literature from 2019-2024, contribute to or mitigate gender inequity in the tech industry. Employing a novel methodology that includes a bespoke AI assistant for systematic literature review and critical bibliometric analysis, her preliminary findings suggest a lack of robust theoretical frameworks for addressing AI bias from a social justice perspective. This work has significant implications for pedagogy, theory, and practice by offering a model for using AI tools for critical inquiry, a new method for theoretical analysis at scale, and a framework for designing more equitable and human-centered AI-driven performance management systems.

E2. Advancing QuantCrit Through Construct Design, Comparison Rules, and Bounded Use

2026-07-24 | 2 PM EDT
Presenter(s): Catherina Villafuerte, University of Connecticut
Description

Quantitative inquiry in education is often presented as neutral and objective, yet constructs, categories, reference groups, and modeling decisions are historically and politically produced choices that shape how inequity is rendered visible, explained, and acted upon (Covarrubias & Vélez, 2013; García et al., 2018; Gillborn et al., 2018; López et al., 2018). Despite these stakes, the field lacks an integrated, justice-oriented framework to guide these decisions. QuantCrit extends CRT into quantitative practice by arguing that numbers and racialized categories are socially constructed and that quantitative work carries an affirmative obligation to advance justice. The framework draws carefully from decolonial and Indigenous traditions to inform attention to authority, reciprocity, relational accountability, language, refusal, and consequences of use (Brayboy, 2005; Carroll et al., 2020; LaFrance & Crazy Bull, 2012; Mignolo, 2009, 2011; Smith, 2021). Validity scholarship provides the language for evaluating score interpretation, group comparison, fairness, and consequences of use (Kane, 2010, 2013; Messick, 1995; Putnick & Bornstein, 2016; Solano-Flores & Nelson-Barber, 2001).

Purpose of the Study

This paper addresses that gap, specifying standards for how constructs should be defined, what counts as evidence of fairness, and when the refusal of specific uses is warranted. Because the field currently lacks explicit operational standards for these analytic decisions, this paper aims to provide a usable framework that disciplines how quantitative tools are designed and deployed in equity-focused work.

Research Questions

1. How can critical traditions including QuantCrit, decoloniality, and Indigenous thought, conceptualize the relationship between quantification, power, and justice?

2. What principles can be drawn from these critical traditions to guide the design of constructs, categories, and comparisons?

3. What forms of refusal, redesign, and consequence governance are required when justice standards are not met?

Methods

This paper is a conceptual, theory building study that employs a critical constructive synthesis. The literature reviewed for this paper includes scholarship in QuantCrit, decolonial and Indigenous traditions, socio-ecological work on educational contexts, and validity scholarship addressing interpretation, comparison, and use. Together, these bodies of scholarship provide the conceptual basis for examining how quantitative inquiry defines constructs, authorizes comparisons, and governs the institutional use of evidence. Targeted readings are selected through backward citation tracing from key decolonial, Indigenous, QuantCrit, and validity texts, as well as through prior scoping work. Each text is coded for its assumptions about constructs, categories, evidence, comparison, and consequences, as well as for its treatment of coloniality, racism, and institutional responsibility. Comparative analysis proceeds through iterative reading, analytic memoing, and matrix-based synthesis. The matrix is used iteratively to refine the emerging commitments and decision rules by documenting how they are supported, challenged, or left underdeveloped across the corpus.

Discussion

The resulting synthesis is articulated as explicit commitments, standards, and decision rules. These include guidance for construct mapping, category justification, cross-group comparison, interpretation, and refusal when claims or uses exceed what evidence can warrant. Significance is both conceptual and practical. A key limitation is that the synthesis is anchored in higher education and in English language scholarship.

Implications for Theory

Conceptually, this paper establishes a justice-oriented language and governance structure for treating constructs, categories, and metrics as designed artifacts. Their assumptions, reference norms, and institutional uses are evaluated as part of validity rather than treated as technical details outside the scope of interpretation. Practically, it offers concrete standards and refusal rules that researchers, institutional research offices, and assessment professionals can apply when developing survey scales, defining comparison groups, and interpreting quantitative results. Because frameworks can be adopted selectively in ways that preserve institutional legitimacy while avoiding accountability, this paper treats refusal and consequence governance as central rather than discretionary.

Criticality Statement

My theoretical anchors are Critical Race Theory, QuantCrit, and decolonial and Indigenous perspectives on knowledge. I treat validity as an argument that must cohere construct representation, comparability, and consequences, and I treat fairness as a precondition for interpretation when findings will be used to judge people, programs, or institutions. These commitments lead me to center structural conditions and community authority and to ask whether measures index modifiable institutional levers rather than private traits. Methodologically, I scrutinize category construction, examine how policies travel through data systems, and assess whether reported uses could reproduce harm or enable redesign. I remain attentive to the interpretive risks that accompany these commitments and engage reflexively with scholarship and colleagues who challenge my assumptions and refine my claims.

E3. Work Week Closing Session: A New Direction for the Conduct of Critical Quantitative Reseearch

2025-07-25 | 3 PM EDT
Presenter(s): David Sul, Ed.D., University of the Virgin Islands
Description

The closing session of the Work Week will focus on new directions for the study and practice of Critical Quantitative methods. It will include feedback and commentary from the Work Week participants.

Criticality Statement

E3. Work Week Closing Session: A New Direction for the Conduct of Critical Quantitative Reseearch

2026-07-24 | 3 PM EDT
Presenter(s): David Sul, Ed.D., Sul & Associates International; University of San Francisco; University of the Virgin Islands
Description

The closing session of the Work Week will focus on new directions for the study and practice of Critical Quantitative methods. It will include feedback and commentary from the Work Week participants.

Criticality Statement