The Role of Theory in Research

Engaging with theory is essential for shaping and contextualizing research questions and arguments (Ko, personal communication August 2023). Clear conceptual, theoretical, and critical frameworks provide a foundation for studies, guiding methodological decisions and facilitating deeper understanding of data and relationships (U.S. Institute for Education Sciences, 2022). High-quality theories offer specific, testable hypotheses and remain consistent across varied contexts (Eggen & Kauchak, 2016).

When existing frameworks are inadequate or ill-suited, exploring theories from intersecting fields or developing new theoretical ideas can be beneficial. For instance, neurodiversity research in computing education has faced resistance from ableist theories, highlighting the need for more inclusive frameworks (Ko, personal communication August 2023).

Equity-centered research requires rejecting oppressive epistemic ideas and adopting critical frameworks to address systemic inequities (Poekert et al., 2020; Sullivan & Gresalfi, 2020). A critical framework prevents assumptions about participants and situate studies more inclusively. For example, Cruz et al. (2023) propose the InCrit framework for observing relationships between theory, practice, and examples in classroom settings.

Researchers should recognize and incorporate participants’ lived experiences and community expertise, supporting their well-being and agency (González, Moll, & Amanti, 2006). Methodologies like Black Feminist Thought (Collins, 1990) and co-design methods, such as Research Practice Partnerships, promote more equitable research by involving participants as active members of the research team (Gautum & Tatar, 2022; Neate et al., 2019).

Identifying a Critical Framework for Research

Funds of Knowledge: This critical framework emphasizes the culturally developed knowledge and skills crucial for household and individual functioning, derived from a study with underprivileged families along the U.S.-Mexico border (González, Moll, & Amanti, 2006). Recognizing these funds helps situate research inclusively by considering diverse backgrounds and lived experiences (National Research Council, 2012; Verdin et al., 2016).

Asset Framing: Deficit framing mistakenly views educational systems as culturally neutral and blames students for their own struggles, reinforcing negative stereotypes (Ladson-Billings, 1995; Gilbert et al., 2011). It has particularly harmful effects on marginalized students, including those with disabilities, and needs to be replaced with an asset-based approach that highlights students’ strengths and contributions (Back, 2016; Botha & Cage, 2022). Research that is asset based ensures that students’ existing knowledge is acknowledged and the research challenges the environment to address student needs.

Intersectionality: Recognizing the interconnectedness of marginalized identities, intersectionality helps address obstacles that prevent diverse students from pursuing computing by valuing the complex interplay of gender, race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status (Crenshaw, 1995; Goethals et al., 2015). It’s crucial to account for these intersecting identities to avoid narrow perspectives (Rodriguez & Lehman, 2017).

CAPE Framework: This critical framework evaluates the ability for education ecosystems to meet the needs of all learners in computing education through Capacity, Access, Participation, and Experience. The framework has been used to study student experiences within the education ecosystem across various demographics (Fletcher & Warner, 2021; Warner et al., 2021; McGill, Snow, & Camping, 2022).

Strategies for Identifying a Critical Framework

Delineate and employ diversity dimensions that most equitably serve the research (e.g., asset-based) and the affected communities (Zuberi, 2001). 

Identify and use equity-centering metrics, tools, and procedures.

Consider discretizing commonly used categories and metrics into smaller, more inclusive, and more descriptive categorizations and evaluations. Also, consider categories established with direct input from participants, since researchers can inflict harm when choosing labels for participants. At times, no categories may be appropriate to avoid inflicting harm.

Identify similarities and differences within and across the studied or impacted groups.

      Identify intersectionalities and any complexities inherent to the overlapping contexts of the  participants and their data.

Identify and honor funds of knowledge: 

      Define equity-focused needs and the desired outcomes. 

      Define what is considered knowledge in the study’s situational contexts.

      Define who has expertise in the study context.

      Incorporate the assets of the participants and their communities.

Additional Resources

References

Back, L. T., Keys, C. B., McMahon, S. D., & O’Neill, K. (2016). How we label students with disabilities: A framework of language use in an urban school district in the United States. Disability Studies Quarterly, 36(4).

Botha, M., & Cage, E. (2022). “Autism research is in crisis”: A mixed method study of researcher’s constructions of autistic people and autism research. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 7397.

Collins, P. H. (1990). Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment. Boston, MA: Un-win Hyman.. 1995.”. In Symposium on West and Fenstermaker’s’ Doing Difference’.” Gender and Society (Vol. 9, pp. 491-94).

Crenshaw, K. (1995). Mapping the margins. Critical race theory: The key writings that formed the movement, 3(15), 357-383.

Cruz, R. A., Firestone, A. R., & Love, M. (2023). Beyond a seat at the table: imagining educational equity through critical inclusion. Educational Review, 1-27.

Eggen, Paul. D., & Kauchak, D. P. (2016). Educational psychology: Windows on classrooms (10th ed.). Pearson Education.

Fletcher, C. L., & Warner, J. R. (2021). CAPE: A framework for assessing equity throughout the computer science education ecosystem. Communications of the ACM, 64(2), 23–25.

Foreman, P. (2005). Language and disability. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 30(1), 57-59.

Garibay, C., & Teasdale, R. M. (2019). Equity and evaluation in informal STEM education. New Directions for Evaluation, 2019(161), 87–106.

Gilbert, R., Keddie, A., Lingard, B., Mills, M., & Renshaw, P. (2011). Equity and education research, policy and practice: A review. In Australian College of Educators National Conference (Vol. 201, No. 1).

Goethals, T., De Schauwer, E., & Van Hove, G. (2015). Weaving intersectionality into disability studies research: Inclusion, reflexivity and anti-essentialism. DiGeSt. Journal of Diversity and Gender Studies, 2(1–2), 75–94.

González, N., Moll, L. C., & Amanti, C. (2006). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities, and classrooms. Routledge.

Gautam, A., & Tatar, D. (2022, August). Empowering Participation Within Structures of Dependency. In Proceedings of the Participatory Design Conference 2022-Volume 1 (pp. 75-86).

Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American educational research journal, 32(3), 465-491.

McGill, M. M., Snow, E., & Camping, A. (2022). A Theory of Impacts Model for Assessing Computer Science Interventions through an Equity Lens: Identifying Systemic Impacts Using the CAPE Framework. Education Sciences, 12(9), 578.

National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press.

Neate, T., Bourazeri, A., Roper, A., Stumpf, S., & Wilson, S. (2019, May). Co-created personas: Engaging and empowering users with diverse needs within the design process. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1-12).

Pearson, M. I., Castle, S. D., Matz, R. L., Koester, B. P., & Byrd, W. C. (2022). Integrating critical approaches into quantitative STEM equity work. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 21(1), es1.

Poekert, P. E., Swaffield, S., Demir, E. K., & A. Wright, S. (2020). Leadership for professional learning towards educational equity: A systematic literature review. Professional Development in Education, 46(4), 541-562.

Rodriguez, S. L., & Lehman, K. (2017). Developing the next generation of diverse computer scientists: the need for enhanced, intersectional computing identity theory. Computer Science Education, 27(3–4), 229–247.

Sullivan, F. R., & Gresalfi, M. S. (2020). Beyond inclusion: the imperative of criticality in CS education research. Computer Science Education, 30(3), 249–253.

U.S. Institute for Education Sciences. 2022. Standards for Excellence in Education Research. https://ies.ed.gov/seer/index.asp

Verdin, D., Godwin, A., & Capobianco, B. (2016). Systematic review of the funds of knowledge framework in STEM education.

Zuberi, T. (2001). Thicker than blood: How racial statistics lie. U of Minnesota Press.