The quantitative nature of Cormier’s project might seem, to some, at odds with CRT and to critical approaches in general. Discuss Cormier’s CPCQ and how it does or doesn’t jibe with your notions of critical theory.
Part 1 It is important to understand the contemporary theoretical understanding of race. Race is real in social life, and the idea of race is a social construct, however the construct is hard to pin down in any objective sense. The idea of race is riddled with apparent contradictions. The commonly employed concept of ‘racial group’ are Black, White, American Indian and Asian/Pacific Islander, other, (putting aside racialization among Latinos) relies on belief that separate, unmixed racial population exist. However, data from 2000 census shows that the racial classification are based on race mixing and this racial ambiguity has provided peculiar and distinctive construction of race. This representation of all racial groups in nonexclusive terms underscore the socially constructed nature of racial definitions.
Given the convoluted and contradictory understanding of race throughout society, the treatment of race in the social sciences is strange. Race is treated by social scientist variously as a firm and intrinsic characteristic as well as a fluid and situational characteristic. Hence race currently used in social research and contemporary race scholarship is perpetually flawed. Race might not be accurately represented and effectively employed in social science research.
Despite the widespread academic understanding of race as a social construction, most studies race in quantitative analysis treat race as a function differences between population. And in this way race is often conceptualized as a cause of a myriad of social processes and distinction. Race is used as a ‘causal variable’ and presented as part of a causal explanation for various social distinctions. Race is understood as a fixed characteristic or a ‘dummy variable’. Sometimes as ‘independent variable’ and that helps explain some other social phenomena. Sometime race is used as ‘control variable’ to imply a theoretical neutrality not supported by the substance of the argument or techniques used in research. The use of race as a ‘control variable’ flattens out the meaning of racial differences and replaces it with a generic notion of differences. This technique represents a presumed neutral usage of race. Race has also been used as intangible variable in a regression model. Through such usage, race has become a bad joke and have double meaning in social scientific research.
The quantitative methods by which race affects social outcomes are not examined directly and true causal relationship are not determined. In other words, the contemporary theoretical views of race flow from understanding it as social construct, but this insight is lost in statistical analysis of race and is often used as a fixed quality or dummy variable.
Part 3 It is important to do quantitative research and use race in studies and statistical models of individual characteristics and behavior. Social scientists who uses statistical models that include race as an independent variable, have contributed to the conceptualization of race as a fixed characteristic. There are several ways to incorporate a more socially and historically situated view of race into models of social behavior. Firstly, use of race as a demographic as “control variable” must be contested. Also, use of race as a demographic “background variable” is misleading and promotes an essential understanding of race by hiding the social underpinning of presumed racial differences. It became important when racial differences are found in a model of social behavior or attitudes, the researcher must critically examine possible causes for this difference. Instead to ‘controlling’ the differences of the divergent ‘others’, racial differences should be assessed and grounded in the set of historical and social circumstances that give meaning to the race concept.
The use of separate models and interaction may help to establish the areas in which broad patterns of social processes have similarities and differences based on racial identity. Hence, the most important step is to incorporate a more grounded conceptualization of race in social research and theorize race as social and a historical fact when thinking about racial effects.
Over the last few years, the idea of “cultural competence” has become more critically examined. While I believe the concept’s intentions are good, I have seen many folks who ascribe to CRT and social justice work, veer away from using this term all together. The term “cultural humility” has become more popular, suggesting that there is no point where any given person can become completely all-knowing about particular cultures. Learning, in CRT, is seen as an ongoing process, that requires humility. I found that some of the language (such as competence and proficiency for example), veered away from some of the ideas of CRT.
The Cultural Proficiency Q Sort (CPCQ) is interesting because it uses both quantitative and qualitative aspects to measure learning. Cormier mentions that this model has been replicated, and the study suggests that student and educators have found this model and educational design to be useful in cultural dialogue and reflection.
Personally, I see positives and negatives to a model like this. Whenever there is a model of development, there will always be outliers who do not necessarily fit within the boxes or stages prescribed (e..g The Cultural Proficiency Continuum). I think models like this can be useful as people are beginning to conceptualize critical theory though, and a model like this may appeal to an audience that is typically hesitant about qualitative research.
I would argue that Cormier and other quantitative researchers assessing the sociological impacts of race through the lens of CRT are not by any means at odds with it. CRT views race as a social construct with limited or no biological basis. Cormier's quantitative research is not at odds with that.
I think, when performing quantitative analyses of race, it is important to be clear about what is being quantified. Within the lens of CRT, what *can* be quantified is a person's self-identity with regards to race. If someone identifies as Latinx, for example, quantifying that isn't quantifying an objective measure of race, it is quantifying their expressed identity. Cormier is clear about this in his explanation of his study - his tables clearly label race and gender as self-reports.
Similarly, in assessing the results of the survey, Cormier is clear that this quantitative data is measuring the results of the measurement, not an objective sense of understanding of concepts related to race and socioeconomic equity.
I think it can be compared to quantitative studies of 'happiness' in some ways. It isn't really possible to quantify happiness, but it is possible to quantify expressions of happiness, or statements aligned with happiness, or self-identified happiness. If an expert constructs a question designed to assess someone's knowledge of a cultural issue, quantitative data related to that measure should be understood as quantitative data related to that measure, not as an absolute measure of cultural understanding.
Overall, I think the Q sort goes hand in hand with my notion of critical theory simply because I believe that any type of critical research has to start within. The q sort helps us to understand where we are currently and allow us to truly reflect on our own practices and beliefs. I think a common theme we have talked about and seen in education is everyone pointing the finger without taking the time to analyze themselves. Of course with any type continuum, you run into the idea of not neatly fitting into any category, or one answer pushing you one way versus the other. However, in relation to cultural competency, I think that fluidity is beneficial. As practitioners use the Q-sort to identify areas of change and adjust, they can see how, or if, those changes are actually moving them towards their goal. Something as practical as the Q sort worksheet moves us away from the gimmicks or buzzwords, and more towards true self reflection and change.
Dana R-D The question posed for this class session’s blog post is a bit difficult for me to get my head and heart around. The inference that the quantitative analysis process that Cornier iteratively applied in assessing the relevance and value of emerging versions of the cultural competence tool that he was trying to develop does not link in much a substantive way for me to critical race theory as Ladson-Billings presents it. She speaks of the need for educators to take “bold positions to expose racism in education” and “to propose radical solutions to addressing it.” The project by Cornier to develop a re-worked CPCQ using vignettes grounded more powerfully in “disorienting dilemmas” authentic to the presence of racial bias and oppression for otherized students in urban school settings may constitute a “radical solution” approach for some PST users, but it also strikes me as potentially closer to the “distilled day-long workshops and five-step lesson plans that Ladson-Billings seems to deride as mere institutionalized window dressing on deep wounds of inequity and injustice that remain essentially untreated. From this perspective, I do not see an issue about using quantitative vs. qualitative CPCQ content assessment methods as having much importance. I look forward to reading my class colleagues observations on the posed question and our forthcoming class discussion on the topic.
This is the second time I have seen this Q sort. Last semester, we did this in Dr. Cormier's class. I think that quantifying this type of data is extremely tricky, but I find this Q sort brings up many interesting questions for sure. It reminds me of surveys I have taken for personality testing where you are asked questions that make you think, "Hmmmm, I am not sure that this question is giving me any correct choice to answer, so I will pick this one. While most of them I could, there were a number that I could not really say one way or the other. I did like this as a conversation generator in class. CRT is something that I dove into last semester because I had to do a presentation on Ladson-Billings and CRT in Dr. Cormier's class. It was my first experience with it, and I went deep to try to get a better understanding. This was a great first project of my PhD program! I had no clue what I had signed up for. I learned a great deal, and it truly helped me figure out what type of researcher and educator I wanted to be. While I love GLB's writing and her ideas on the educational deficit, I did not completely agree with all of her assertions. I do find value in her work and respect it a great deal. I am currently doing a project on deficit language, and she has come up quite a bit through articles who use her work to support their ideas on the dangers of deficit language.
During my masters program I was introduced to a similar continuum that measured cultural competence that was used by a language specialist from a local school district. I appreciated the protocol as it served as a reflection for me. I could see how people not ready to have intentional, tough conversations around cultural competence would oppose the quantitative nature of Cormier’s CPCQ, however we know that any approach to social justice that involves change must include an inward look of self.
I believe the q-sort lends itself to CRT. Like any measurement instrument/test/etc there is a desire to put the results in a box and say there is no room for change or further interpretation. We need ot break free of thinking that every test we take is definitive of who we are. We are constantly growing as people and instruments like the Q-Sort can aid in our growth. We need to recognize where we are in order to get to where we want to be. It is sort of like making a SMART Goal but it is an internal goal instead of an outside one.
I’ve looked at CRT as such a relationship based research area, so it’s interesting to see research where it’s looked at with both a qualitative and quantitative lens. This was my first time learning about Q methodology/Q-sort, I don’t know how it represents in other studies, but it still seems more qualitative in nature to me. I honestly had a hard time getting through and making sense of Cormier’s article. I felt like I had to do more secondary research on my own to understand what was going on. I think CRT is super important, I’m just not sure I was able to understand how effective this study was in regards to that. Lauren
Michelle Carter I don’t think that Cormier’s project is at odds with CRT and to critical approaches in general. One of the characteristics that I appreciate about the CPCQ is that it seems aligned with Mezirow’s Transformative Dimensions of Adult Learning. A formative assessment using a disorienting dilemma through self-reflection, dialogue, and inquiry aligns with adult learning theory and creates a learning experience within the assessment. Like Ladson-Billings, my concern is that this will be used in away that avoids the necessary uncomfortable conversations (dialogues) in lieu of superficial “day-long workshops and five-step lesson plans.”
Q-methodology combines qualitative and quantitative research methods to systematically explore and describe the range of viewpoints about a topic. Participants are required to rank a set of predefined statements relating to the topic, according to their own viewpoint. Opposite to the representative sample for the general population, Q-methodology works with a small non-representative sample, conclusions are limited to those who participated in the study. This characteristic of Q-sort can be a strong quantitative supplemental tool for qualitative research. By sorting Cultural Proficiency Continuum, participants revealed their perspectives about “culturally proficient behaviors” and how they ranked them. The relationships of variables and sorts become more visible. CPCQ does jibe with the critical theory, and is the strong supplement for CRT, and provides a portable tool to self-assess or self-report for effective leadership.
I reached out to Dr. Cormier after his presentation because I found the concept of empirical critical theory absolutely fascinating (and right up my alley). He provided me with numerous articles for me to read on the topic, and I'm walking away with a better understanding of critical theory. At the end of the day, the goal of critical theory should be to center research on the narrative of marginalized people with the understanding and assumption that they exist within a system of prejudice. Once you do that, it doesn't really matter whether or not the methodology is strictly qualitative. In fact, overreliance on qualitative story-telling is often ineffective at making the needle move. Story-telling provides perspective and context, but after a point, the context is understood, so further inquiry into context is redundant.
Inquiry that is more focused on an intervention can produce actionable change. In this regard, e-CRT seems to be the natural next step from traditional critical theory methodologies, so Dr. Cormier's work doesn't surprise me at all. Ash TB
Part 1
ReplyDeleteIt is important to understand the contemporary theoretical understanding of race. Race is real in social life, and the idea of race is a social construct, however the construct is hard to pin down in any objective sense. The idea of race is riddled with apparent contradictions. The commonly employed concept of ‘racial group’ are Black, White, American Indian and Asian/Pacific Islander, other, (putting aside racialization among Latinos) relies on belief that separate, unmixed racial population exist. However, data from 2000 census shows that the racial classification are based on race mixing and this racial ambiguity has provided peculiar and distinctive construction of race. This representation of all racial groups in nonexclusive terms underscore the socially constructed nature of racial definitions.
Given the convoluted and contradictory understanding of race throughout society, the treatment of race in the social sciences is strange. Race is treated by social scientist variously as a firm and intrinsic characteristic as well as a fluid and situational characteristic. Hence race currently used in social research and contemporary race scholarship is perpetually flawed. Race might not be accurately represented and effectively employed in social science research.
Part 2
ReplyDeleteDespite the widespread academic understanding of race as a social construction, most studies race in quantitative analysis treat race as a function differences between population. And in this way race is often conceptualized as a cause of a myriad of social processes and distinction. Race is used as a ‘causal variable’ and presented as part of a causal explanation for various social distinctions. Race is understood as a fixed characteristic or a ‘dummy variable’. Sometimes as ‘independent variable’ and that helps explain some other social phenomena. Sometime race is used as ‘control variable’ to imply a theoretical neutrality not supported by the substance of the argument or techniques used in research. The use of race as a ‘control variable’ flattens out the meaning of racial differences and replaces it with a generic notion of differences. This technique represents a presumed neutral usage of race. Race has also been used as intangible variable in a regression model. Through such usage, race has become a bad joke and have double meaning in social scientific research.
The quantitative methods by which race affects social outcomes are not examined directly and true causal relationship are not determined. In other words, the contemporary theoretical views of race flow from understanding it as social construct, but this insight is lost in statistical analysis of race and is often used as a fixed quality or dummy variable.
Part 3
ReplyDeleteIt is important to do quantitative research and use race in studies and statistical models of individual characteristics and behavior. Social scientists who uses statistical models that include race as an independent variable, have contributed to the conceptualization of race as a fixed characteristic. There are several ways to incorporate a more socially and historically situated view of race into models of social behavior. Firstly, use of race as a demographic as “control variable” must be contested. Also, use of race as a demographic “background variable” is misleading and promotes an essential understanding of race by hiding the social underpinning of presumed racial differences. It became important when racial differences are found in a model of social behavior or attitudes, the researcher must critically examine possible causes for this difference. Instead to ‘controlling’ the differences of the divergent ‘others’, racial differences should be assessed and grounded in the set of historical and social circumstances that give meaning to the race concept.
The use of separate models and interaction may help to establish the areas in which broad patterns of social processes have similarities and differences based on racial identity. Hence, the most important step is to incorporate a more grounded conceptualization of race in social research and theorize race as social and a historical fact when thinking about racial effects.
Post from Mia Liadis
ReplyDeleteOver the last few years, the idea of “cultural competence” has become more critically examined. While I believe the concept’s intentions are good, I have seen many folks who ascribe to CRT and social justice work, veer away from using this term all together. The term “cultural humility” has become more popular, suggesting that there is no point where any given person can become completely all-knowing about particular cultures. Learning, in CRT, is seen as an ongoing process, that requires humility. I found that some of the language (such as competence and proficiency for example), veered away from some of the ideas of CRT.
The Cultural Proficiency Q Sort (CPCQ) is interesting because it uses both quantitative and qualitative aspects to measure learning. Cormier mentions that this model has been replicated, and the study suggests that student and educators have found this model and educational design to be useful in cultural dialogue and reflection.
Personally, I see positives and negatives to a model like this. Whenever there is a model of development, there will always be outliers who do not necessarily fit within the boxes or stages prescribed (e..g The Cultural Proficiency Continuum). I think models like this can be useful as people are beginning to conceptualize critical theory though, and a model like this may appeal to an audience that is typically hesitant about qualitative research.
I would argue that Cormier and other quantitative researchers assessing the sociological impacts of race through the lens of CRT are not by any means at odds with it. CRT views race as a social construct with limited or no biological basis. Cormier's quantitative research is not at odds with that.
ReplyDeleteI think, when performing quantitative analyses of race, it is important to be clear about what is being quantified. Within the lens of CRT, what *can* be quantified is a person's self-identity with regards to race. If someone identifies as Latinx, for example, quantifying that isn't quantifying an objective measure of race, it is quantifying their expressed identity. Cormier is clear about this in his explanation of his study - his tables clearly label race and gender as self-reports.
Similarly, in assessing the results of the survey, Cormier is clear that this quantitative data is measuring the results of the measurement, not an objective sense of understanding of concepts related to race and socioeconomic equity.
I think it can be compared to quantitative studies of 'happiness' in some ways. It isn't really possible to quantify happiness, but it is possible to quantify expressions of happiness, or statements aligned with happiness, or self-identified happiness. If an expert constructs a question designed to assess someone's knowledge of a cultural issue, quantitative data related to that measure should be understood as quantitative data related to that measure, not as an absolute measure of cultural understanding.
Overall, I think the Q sort goes hand in hand with my notion of critical theory simply because I believe that any type of critical research has to start within. The q sort helps us to understand where we are currently and allow us to truly reflect on our own practices and beliefs. I think a common theme we have talked about and seen in education is everyone pointing the finger without taking the time to analyze themselves. Of course with any type continuum, you run into the idea of not neatly fitting into any category, or one answer pushing you one way versus the other. However, in relation to cultural competency, I think that fluidity is beneficial. As practitioners use the Q-sort to identify areas of change and adjust, they can see how, or if, those changes are actually moving them towards their goal. Something as practical as the Q sort worksheet moves us away from the gimmicks or buzzwords, and more towards true self reflection and change.
ReplyDeleteSierria Ware
DeleteDana R-D
ReplyDeleteThe question posed for this class session’s blog post is a bit difficult for me to get my head and heart around. The inference that the quantitative analysis process that Cornier iteratively applied in assessing the relevance and value of emerging versions of the cultural competence tool that he was trying to develop does not link in much a substantive way for me to critical race theory as Ladson-Billings presents it. She speaks of the need for educators to take “bold positions to expose racism in education” and “to propose radical solutions to addressing it.” The project by Cornier to develop a re-worked CPCQ using vignettes grounded more powerfully in “disorienting dilemmas” authentic to the presence of racial bias and oppression for otherized students in urban school settings may constitute a “radical solution” approach for some PST users, but it also strikes me as potentially closer to the “distilled day-long workshops and five-step lesson plans that Ladson-Billings seems to deride as mere institutionalized window dressing on deep wounds of inequity and injustice that remain essentially untreated. From this perspective, I do not see an issue about using quantitative vs. qualitative CPCQ content assessment methods as having much importance. I look forward to reading my class colleagues observations on the posed question and our forthcoming class discussion on the topic.
This is the second time I have seen this Q sort. Last semester, we did this in Dr. Cormier's class. I think that quantifying this type of data is extremely tricky, but I find this Q sort brings up many interesting questions for sure. It reminds me of surveys I have taken for personality testing where you are asked questions that make you think, "Hmmmm, I am not sure that this question is giving me any correct choice to answer, so I will pick this one. While most of them I could, there were a number that I could not really say one way or the other. I did like this as a conversation generator in class. CRT is something that I dove into last semester because I had to do a presentation on Ladson-Billings and CRT in Dr. Cormier's class. It was my first experience with it, and I went deep to try to get a better understanding. This was a great first project of my PhD program! I had no clue what I had signed up for. I learned a great deal, and it truly helped me figure out what type of researcher and educator I wanted to be. While I love GLB's writing and her ideas on the educational deficit, I did not completely agree with all of her assertions. I do find value in her work and respect it a great deal. I am currently doing a project on deficit language, and she has come up quite a bit through articles who use her work to support their ideas on the dangers of deficit language.
ReplyDeleteDuring my masters program I was introduced to a similar continuum that measured cultural competence that was used by a language specialist from a local school district. I appreciated the protocol as it served as a reflection for me. I could see how people not ready to have intentional, tough conversations around cultural competence would oppose the quantitative nature of Cormier’s CPCQ, however we know that any approach to social justice that involves change must include an inward look of self.
ReplyDeleteJasmine
I believe the q-sort lends itself to CRT. Like any measurement instrument/test/etc there is a desire to put the results in a box and say there is no room for change or further interpretation. We need ot break free of thinking that every test we take is definitive of who we are. We are constantly growing as people and instruments like the Q-Sort can aid in our growth. We need to recognize where we are in order to get to where we want to be. It is sort of like making a SMART Goal but it is an internal goal instead of an outside one.
ReplyDeleteGerron
I’ve looked at CRT as such a relationship based research area, so it’s interesting to see research where it’s looked at with both a qualitative and quantitative lens. This was my first time learning about Q methodology/Q-sort, I don’t know how it represents in other studies, but it still seems more qualitative in nature to me. I honestly had a hard time getting through and making sense of Cormier’s article. I felt like I had to do more secondary research on my own to understand what was going on. I think CRT is super important, I’m just not sure I was able to understand how effective this study was in regards to that. Lauren
ReplyDeleteMichelle Carter
ReplyDeleteI don’t think that Cormier’s project is at odds with CRT and to critical approaches in general. One of the characteristics that I appreciate about the CPCQ is that it seems aligned with Mezirow’s Transformative Dimensions of Adult Learning. A formative assessment using a disorienting dilemma through self-reflection, dialogue, and inquiry aligns with adult learning theory and creates a learning experience within the assessment. Like Ladson-Billings, my concern is that this will be used in away that avoids the necessary uncomfortable conversations (dialogues) in lieu of superficial “day-long workshops and five-step lesson plans.”
Q-methodology combines qualitative and quantitative research methods to systematically explore and describe the range of viewpoints about a topic. Participants are required to rank a set of predefined statements relating to the topic, according to their own viewpoint. Opposite to the representative sample for the general population, Q-methodology works with a small non-representative sample, conclusions are limited to those who participated in the study. This characteristic of Q-sort can be a strong quantitative supplemental tool for qualitative research. By sorting Cultural Proficiency Continuum, participants revealed their perspectives about “culturally proficient behaviors” and how they ranked them. The relationships of variables and sorts become more visible. CPCQ does jibe with the critical theory, and is the strong supplement for CRT, and provides a portable tool to self-assess or self-report for effective leadership.
ReplyDeleteFrom Hui Sun
I reached out to Dr. Cormier after his presentation because I found the concept of empirical critical theory absolutely fascinating (and right up my alley). He provided me with numerous articles for me to read on the topic, and I'm walking away with a better understanding of critical theory. At the end of the day, the goal of critical theory should be to center research on the narrative of marginalized people with the understanding and assumption that they exist within a system of prejudice. Once you do that, it doesn't really matter whether or not the methodology is strictly qualitative. In fact, overreliance on qualitative story-telling is often ineffective at making the needle move. Story-telling provides perspective and context, but after a point, the context is understood, so further inquiry into context is redundant.
ReplyDeleteInquiry that is more focused on an intervention can produce actionable change. In this regard, e-CRT seems to be the natural next step from traditional critical theory methodologies, so Dr. Cormier's work doesn't surprise me at all.
Ash TB