The Numbers and the Narrative: A Critical Mixed Methods Synthesis of Disproportionality Literature Across Paradigms

• In Event: Anti-Racist Critical Perspectives Diversifying Special Education Research: Challenging Traditional Narratives of Objectivity, Neutrality, and Science

Abstract

Objective and Theoretical Framing

Disproportionality researchers have argued that—prior to controls—Black, Latinx, and Indigenous students are proportionally overrepresented in special education (Harry & Fenton, 2016) and exclusionary discipline (Welsh & Little, 2018) and underrepresented in gifted education (Peters et al., 2019). Some scholars have framed the problem of disproportionality as strictly quantitative, an imbalance in proportions (Kauffman & Anastasiou, 2019). Qualitative researchers have problematized this stance as reductionist, emphasizing how numerical understandings must be informed by the voices of those represented in the numbers (Lewis-McCoy 2016). We present a mixed methods literature synthesis on racial disproportionality in these educational systems through which power is negotiated. We sought to generate new understandings of the inequities characterizing mechanisms that underlie said inequities based on the perspectives of those most impacted in these systems.

Methods

We used a convergent mixed methods approach (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018) to literature synthesis, in which we simultaneously extracted quantitative data—in the form of raw sample percentages and adjusted odds ratios—and quotes reflecting narratives from qualitative articles. We then analyzed each strand of findings separately, using Borenstein et al.’s (2021) process for bivariate outcome meta-analysis and Hsieh and Shannon’s (2005) content-analysis approach to identify narratives presented in the qualitative works. We integrated those findings to generate meta-inferences.

Data Sources

Our search produced k = 177 studies on disproportionality in special education (n = 71), gifted education (n = 16), and discipline (n = 81). Of the full sample, 114 of the articles used quantitative methods, 51 used qualitative methods, and 12 used mixed or multiple methods. Figure 1 depicts the PRISMA diagram outlining our article-retrieval process, and Table 1 indicates the analytic sample’s characteristics, including field of study by methodology.

Results

Black, Indigenous, and Latinx students were less likely—compared to white students—to experience a gifted outcome but more likely to experience a discipline outcome. Students identified as American Indian/Alaska Native, Black, and Latinx were overrepresented in special education compared to white students, however the confidence interval overlapped with 0, indicating special education as a contested inequity space. Qualitatively, two main themes emerged from the data: (a) students described racism in their experiences whereas practitioners relied on race-evasive or avoidant narratives, and (b) participants identified ways that these power structures placed students on differential trajectories with material consequences. Through joint display analysis, we established that: (a) narratives countered neutrality assumed in atheoretical approaches; and (b) the importance of local context and how students are sorted nonrandomly into such settings. Figure 2 shows our joint display.

Significance

Because special education, gifted education, and discipline are all fields in which power is negotiated, understanding disproportionality across these systems holds potential for new perspectives. Numerical representations of disproportionality cannot be understood in isolation from the complex socio-cultural and historical contexts in which disparities occur. Doing so risks oversimplification and misinterpretation of quantitative results. The study highlights how educational disparities are framed—toward one that prioritizes the lived experiences of affected communities.

Authors

• Rebecca A. Cruz, Johns Hopkins University

• Allison Firestone, San Francisco Unified School District

• Sarah A Caroleo, Brown University

• Rachel Saperstein McClam, Johns Hopkins University

• Isun Malekghassemi, Johns Hopkins University

• Logan McDermott, Johns Hopkins University

• Claire Shin, Johns Hopkins University

• Abigail Howes, Johns Hopkins University

• Hailey Love, University of Wisconsin - Madison