July 26, 2021
July 26, 2021
July 19, 2022
Educational Research and Methods
Much of the educational research on diversity, equity, and inclusion in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields has taken a deficits-based approach, focusing on how students who are systemically marginalized based on racial and ethnic status lack the cultural resources valued by the dominant group that contribute to success in STEM. In recent years, however, there has been an increasing number of studies that employ the concept of community cultural wealth (CCW) proposed by a critical race scholar Tara J. Yosso (2005) to understand the persistence of marginalized students in engineering (For example, see Samuelson and Litzler 2016). The CCW framework identifies distinct cultural resources nurtured through families and communities that students who are systemically marginalized based on racial and ethnic status possess. Most of the existing literature on CCW exclusively utilizes qualitative methods, contributing to rich theory development and exploration of the lived experience of students from marginalized groups. In this project, we utilize a mixed-methods approach to develop a quantitative measure of CCW in order to develop a broader understanding of the extent to which students from marginalized groups possess the various dimensions of CCW and are able to activate/access CCW to succeed in STEM. In doing so, we answer to recent calls for an increased utilization of quantitative methods for examining critical race theory (CRT), or “QuantCrit” (Garcia et al. 2018).
Our study is conducted in collaboration with the Pacific Northwest Louis Stokes Alliance for Minority Participation (PNW LSAMP), an NSF-funded project to broaden participation of underrepresented undergraduate students in STEM. This study follows best practices for survey questionnaire design. First, we conducted literature review of the few existing survey instruments that attempt to measure CCW as well as literature review of CRT and its historical relationship with quantitative methods. Second, we interviewed 11 students across the PNW LSAMP alliance to help inform the development of our CCW scale. Third, six of these students participated in a follow-up cognitive interview which involved answering probing questions about the clarity and focus of survey questions. Fourth, we piloted our CCW survey questions on the 2020 annual student survey conducted every spring for program evaluation purposes. A total of 660 students agreed to participate in the educational research part of the survey.
We are currently in the process of analyzing survey data to refine and validate our CCW scale. In particular, while acknowledging the fact that each form of CCW is deeply intertwined with one another and no type of CCW exists in a silo, we ask questions such as: What does exploratory factor analysis suggest regarding the structure of the CCW scale? Do the results from confirmatory factor analysis statistically support the six-dimensional structure of CCW as proposed by Yosso (2005)? We consider that this work-in-progress paper has potential to illustrate how quantitative research may be used to empirically evaluate the claims of CRT and how CRT, in turn, may be used to inform quantitative research. We are especially seeking for feedback from critical race scholars.
Hiramori, D., & Knaphus-Soran, E., & Litzler, E. (2021, July), Critically Quantitative: Measuring Community Cultural Wealth on Surveys Paper presented at 2021 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access, Virtual Conference. 10.18260/1-2--36880
ASEE holds the copyright on this document. It may be read by the public free of charge. Authors may archive their work on personal websites or in institutional repositories with the following citation: © 2021 American Society for Engineering Education. Other scholars may excerpt or quote from these materials with the same citation. When excerpting or quoting from Conference Proceedings, authors should, in addition to noting the ASEE copyright, list all the original authors and their institutions and name the host city of the conference. - Last updated April 1, 2015