Training the Reviewers of Tomorrow: A Doctoral Student Reviewer Mentoring Model

FEELY, TED JR., “Critical Thinking: Toward Definitions, Paradigms and Research Agenda,” Theory and Research in Social Education, IV, 1(Summer, 1976), pp. 1–19. BASKERVILLE, ROGER ALAN AND SESOW, F. WILLIAM, “In Defense of Hanna and the ‘Expanding Communities’ Approach to Social Studies,” Theory and Research in Social Education, IV, 1(Summer, 1976), pp. 20–32. NELSON, JACK L., “Nationalistic vs. Global Education: An Examination of National Bias in the Schools and its Implications for a Global Society,” Theory and Research in Social Education, IV, 1(Summer, 1976), pp. 33–50. BARGER, HAROLD M., “Demythologizing the Textbook President: Teaching About the President Ater Watergate,” Theory and Research in Social Education, IV, 1(Summer, 1976), pp. 51–66. JENNINGS, M. KENT and EHMAN, LEE H., “Political Attitudes of Parents and Social Studies Teachers: Comparisons and Linkages,” Theory and Research in Social Education, IV, 1(Summer, 1976), pp. 67–00.

The purpose of this study was to determine if research in social studies education reflected the same lack of attention to population and sample definitions and description, to randomness, and to replication that the authors found in a previous review of articles in the American Educational Research Journal over a ten-year period. Their study of all the research articles in Theory and Research in Social Education and in all Research Department of Social Education through 1978 indicated that small percentages of the articles report research done with random samples of subjects, that accessible populations were not often described with data, that the definitions researchers provided for target and accessible population and the sample descriptions appeared inadequate either as a basis for sampling or for others to use in replicating the studies, and that few studies used random assignment to conditions. It was concluded that, while much time, effort and money are expended on social studies education...

This edited book is a continuation of Keith Barton’s Research Methods in Social Studies Education (2006), one of the most popular texts in the Information Age’s Research in Social Education series. (Re)Envisioning Social Studies Education Research: Current Epistemological and Methodological Expansions, Deconstructions, and Creations explores research in social studies education over the 15 years since. Chapters offer insight into how researchers use different epistemological frameworks and non-traditional or emergent methods to advance social studies scholarship.The book is organized into two sections: (1) methodology as epistemological stretches, revisions, and/or entanglements; and (2) emergent and non-traditional methods in social studies research and practice. Authors pull on diverse and emerging theoretical frameworks, review recently published research, and highlight their own experiences with inquiry in the field. This text serves as a platform to explore the processes and products of diverse research decisions to engage the field in broader conversations that can rethink, expand, and disrupt social studies education research. The intention is also to honor and center epistemological frameworks that have been marginalized in previous scholarship. This text can serve as an entry point for graduate students and novice scholars, while also helping seasoned researchers seek opportunities to expand their own work or mentor students.

Democracy, Education, and Multiculturalism: Dilemmas of Citizenship in a Global World

of making a prophecy about it. Second, that the act of making a prophecy about a situation is also an act of creating the conditions through which the prophecy is realized. Recent research has presented some convincing evidence that the self-fulfilling prophecy may be at work in educational settings across the country. In a study by Rosenthal and Jacobson eighteen elementary-school teachers were told that certain of

Critical qualitative research and social education are vital for the world of the 21st century. The onslaught of neoliberalism, corporatization, standardization, testing, and the continuing attack on public schools and educators necessitate critical approaches to teaching and learning along with critical qualitative research in social education. Ongoing issues with equity and social justice tied to race, ethnicity, class, orientation, age, and ability linking to schooling, education, teaching and learning must be addressed. The struggle between unbridled capitalism and democracy warrant these investigations in the 21st century, hopefully leading to advocacy and activism.This book explores critical qualitative research in social education, focusing on power, privilege, and social justice. It covers various topics, including the role of relationships, collaborative autoethnography, critical historical thinking, and transforming social studies classrooms. The chapters address issues like special education, deficit thinking, literacy skills, and international education, offering diverse perspectives and methodologies to empower educators and students.

Author Biographies

BackgroundThe characteristics of nursing doctoral programs and the doctoral students’ experience have not been thoroughly investigated. Hence, this study aimed to describe the characteristics of nursing doctoral programs in East and South East Asian (ESEA) countries and regions from the views of doctoral program coordinators, and to explore the students’ experiences of and satisfaction with their doctoral nursing program.MethodsA cross-sectional survey was conducted using two self-designed questionnaires, one focusing on PhD program coordinators and the other on doctoral students. Characteristics of the nursing doctoral programs focused on program characteristics, faculty characteristics, career pathways for graduates, and challenges for nursing doctoral education. Doctoral students’ assessment of study experiences included quality of supervision, doctoral training programs, intellectual/cultural climate of institutions, general facilities/support, and the overall study experience and satisfaction.ResultsIn the PhD coordinators survey, 46 institutions across nine ESEA countries and regions participated. More than half of nursing departments had academic members from other health science disciplines to supervise doctoral nursing students. The majority of graduates were holding academic or research positions in higher education institutions. Faculty shortages, delays in the completion of the program and inadequate financial support were commonly reported challenges for doctoral nursing education. In the students’ survey, 193 doctoral students participated. 88.3% of the students were satisfied with the supervision they received from their supervisors; however, 79% reported that their supervisors ‘pushed’ them to publish research papers. For doctoral training programs, 75.5% were satisfied with their curriculum; but around half reported that the teaching training components (55.9%) and mobility opportunities (54.2%) were not included in their programs. For overall satisfaction with the intellectual and cultural climate, the percentages were 76.1 and 68.1%, respectively. Only 66.7% of the students felt satisfied with the facilities provided by their universities and nursing institutions.ConclusionDoctoral nursing programs in most of the ESEA countries value the importance of both research and coursework. Doctoral nursing students generally hold positive experiences of their study. However, incorporating more teaching training components, providing more opportunities for international mobility, and making more effort to improve research-related facilities may further enhance the student experience. There is also a need to have international guidelines and standards for quality indicators of doctoral programs to maintain quality and find solutions to global challenges in nursing doctoral education.

Previous articleNext article No AccessThe Learning of ConceptsRobert M. GagnéRobert M. Gagné Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Volume 73, Number 3Autumn, 1965 Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/442739 Views: 38Total views on this site Citations: 9Citations are reported from Crossref Journal History This article was published in The School Review (1893-1979), which is continued by the American Journal of Education (1979-present). Copyright 1965 University of ChicagoPDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article: Mai Thu Duong, Nguyen Thi Kim Cuc, Patrick Griffin Developing a Framework to Measure Process-oriented Writing Competence: A Case of Vietnamese EFL Students? Formal Portfolio Assessment, RELC Journal 42, no.22 (Jun 2011): 167–185.https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688211402179Pieter W. G. Bots, F. Pieter Wagenaar, Rolf Willemse Assimilation of Public Policy Concepts Through Role-Play: Distinguishing Rational Design and Political Negotiation, Simulation & Gaming 41, no.55 (Apr 2010): 743–766.https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878109353468Roger F. Yoho Effectiveness of Four Concept Teaching Strategies on Social Studies Concept Acquisition and Retention, Theory & Research in Social Education 14, no.33 (Jun 1986): 211–223.https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.1986.10505523Mary Jane Ford, C. Warren Mckinney The Effects of Recycling and Response Sensitivity on the Acquisition of Social Studies Concepts, Theory & Research in Social Education 14, no.11 (Jan 1986): 21–33.https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.1986.10505509McKinney C. Warren, Herschel Q. Peddicord, Mary J. Forid, Larkins A. Guy The Effectiveness of Three Methods of Teaching Social Studies Concepts to Sixth-Grade Students, The Journal of Educational Research 78, no.11 (Jan 2015): 35–39.https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1984.10885569William B. Stanley Approaches to Teaching Concepts and Conceptualizing: An Analysis of Social Studies Methods Textbooks, Theory & Research in Social Education 11, no.44 (Jan 1984): 1–14.https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.1984.10505461C Warren Mckinney, A. Guy Larkins, Mary Jane Ford, John C. Davis The Effectiveness of Three Methods of Teaching Social Studies Concepts to Fourth-grade Students: An Aptitude-Treatment Interaction Study, American Educational Research Journal 20, no.44 (Jun 2016): 663–670.https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312020004663Thomas Rowland, Carson McGuire The development of intelligent behavior V: Central process theorists, Psychology in the Schools 6, no.11 (Jan 1969): 24–37.https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6807(196901)6:1<24::AID-PITS2310060105>3.0.CO;2-XROBERT M. GAGNÉ THE LEARNING OF PRINCIPLES, (Jan 1966): 81–95.https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-1-4832-3127-3.50011-0

In order to help potential authors improve their manuscripts, we present the following discussion of recent submissions to Theory and Research in Social Education.

Previous articleNext article No AccessIntelligence and Sense of Political Efficacy in ChildrenElliott S. WhiteElliott S. White Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by The Journal of Politics Volume 30, Number 3Aug., 1968 Sponsored by the Southern Political Science Association Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.2307/2128802 Views: 11Total views on this site Citations: 20Citations are reported from Crossref Copyright 1968 Southern Political Science AssociationPDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Ming-Lun Chung, Ken Ka-wo Fung, Eric MP Chiu, Chao-Lung Liu Toward a Rational Civil Society: Deliberative Thinking, Civic Participation, and Self-Efficacy among Taiwanese Young Adults, Political Studies Review 12 (Jul 2021): 147892992110244.https://doi.org/10.1177/14789299211024440Lene Aarøe, Vivek Appadurai, Kasper M. Hansen, Andrew J. Schork, Thomas Werge, Ole Mors, Anders D. Børglum, David M. Hougaard, Merete Nordentoft, Preben B. Mortensen, Wesley Kurt Thompson, Alfonso Buil, Esben Agerbo, Michael Bang Petersen Genetic predictors of educational attainment and intelligence test performance predict voter turnout, Nature Human Behaviour 5, no.22 (Nov 2020): 281–291.https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-00952-2JOHN B. HOLBEIN Childhood Skill Development and Adult Political Participation, American Political Science Review 111, no.0303 (Jun 2017): 572–583.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055417000119Daniel Laurison Social Class and Political Engagement in the United States, Sociology Compass 10, no.88 (Aug 2016): 684–697.https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12390Daniel Laurison The Willingness to State an Opinion: Inequality, Don't Know Responses, and Political Participation, Sociological Forum 30, no.44 (Sep 2015): 925–948.https://doi.org/10.1111/socf.12202Katharine E. Scott, James A. Graham Service-Learning, Journal of Experiential Education 38, no.44 (Dec 2015): 354–372.https://doi.org/10.1177/1053825915592889 Bibliographie, (Mar 2014): 213–231.https://doi.org/10.3917/dbu.djean.2014.01.0213Brett L.M. Levy, Michaela T. Zint Toward fostering environmental political participation: framing an agenda for environmental education research, Environmental Education Research 19, no.55 (Sep 2012): 553–576.https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2012.717218Lee H. Ehman The American School in the Political Socialization Process, Review of Educational Research 50, no.11 (Jun 2016): 99–119.https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543050001099Devon J. Metzger, Robert D. Barr The Impact of School Political Systems on Student Political Attitudes, Theory & Research in Social Education 6, no.22 (Jun 1978): 48–79.https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.1978.10506029Jong Oh Ra, Robert M. Bourdeaux Intelligence, Creativity, and Political Socialization: A Theoretical Model, Youth & Society 9, no.11 (Aug 2016): 3–28.https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X7700900105Michael C. Stentz, H. David Lambert An Empirical Reformulation of Political Efficacy, Theory & Research in Social Education 5, no.11 (Apr 1977): 61–85.https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.1977.10505998Marsha Brauen, Kathryn Newcomer Harmon Political Socialization, Youth & Society 8, no.33 (Mar 1977): 299–320.https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X7700800304David Nachmias A Temporal Sequence of Adolescent Political Participation: Some Israeli Data, British Journal of Political Science 7, no.11 (Jan 2009): 71–83.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123400003975 Yoshimitsu Takei , and Michael Kleiman Participation and Feelings of Political Efficacy: An Examination of the Transference Model, Comparative Education Review 20, no.33 (Oct 2015): 381–399.https://doi.org/10.1086/445908Brij B. Khare Political Awareness and Learning Environments, Teaching Political Science 2, no.33 (Apr 1975): 321–337.https://doi.org/10.1080/00922013.1975.10740055Richard G. Remy, James A. Nathan The future of political systems, Futures 6, no.66 (Dec 1974): 463–476.https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-3287(74)90030-5 Elliott White Genetic Diversity and Political Life: Toward a Populational-Interaction Paradigm, The Journal of Politics 34, no.44 (Oct 2015): 1203–1242.https://doi.org/10.2307/2128933Richard M. Merelman The Development of Policy Thinking in Adolescence, American Political Science Review 65, no.44 (Aug 2014): 1033–1047.https://doi.org/10.2307/1953496John B. Simeone Catalogue of Documents, (Jan 1968): 1–233.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-5280-6_1

Aim/Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to offer a systematic review of empirical literature examining doctoral students’ identity development as scholars in the education sciences. We frame our analysis through a constructivist sociocultural perspective to organize our findings and discuss implications for multiple actors and components that constitute the system of doctoral education, with doctoral students as the central actors of the system. Background: Despite increasing interest in the professional identity development of postsecondary students via their experiences in educational programs, relatively little is known about how doctoral students develop their identity as professionals who engage in scholarship. We focus specifically on the experiences of education sciences doctoral students, given their unique experiences (e.g., typically older in age, more professional experiences prior to starting doctoral program) and the potential of education sciences doctoral programs contributing to the diversification of academia and future generations of students and scholars. Methodology: Our systematic literature search process entailed reviewing the titles, abstracts, and methods sections of the first 1,000 records yielded via a Google Scholar search. This process, combined with backwards and forwards citation snowballing, yielded a total of 62 articles, which were read in their entirety. These 62 articles were further reduced to 36 final articles, which were coded according to an inductively created codebook. Based on themes derived from our coding process, we organized our findings according to a framework that illuminates individual identity development in relation to a larger activity system. Contribution: This systematic review presents the current body of scholarship regarding the identity development of education sciences doctoral students via a constructivist sociocultural framework. We contribute to the study of doctoral education and education research more broadly by focusing on an area that has received relatively little attention. A focus on the identity development of doctoral students pursuing the education sciences is warranted given the field’s promise for preparing a diverse group of future educators and education scholars. Furthermore, this analysis broadens the conversation regarding scholarship on this topic as we present doctoral student identity development as occurring at the intersection of student, faculty, program, disciplinary, institutional, and larger sociocultural contexts, rather than as individualized and local endeavors. Findings: Looking across our reviewed articles, identity as scholar emerged as recognition by self and others of possessing and exhibiting adequate levels of competence, confidence, autonomy, and agency with respect to scholarly activities, products, and communities. Students often experience tensions on their journey towards becoming and being scholars, in contending with multiple identities (e.g., student, professional) and due to the perceived mismatch between students’ idealized notion of scholar and what is attainable for them. Tensions may serve as catalysts for development of identity as scholar for students, especially when student agency is supported via formal and less ubiquitous subsidiary experiences of students’ doctoral programs. Recommendations for Practitioners: We recommend that actors within the broader system of doctoral student identity development (e.g., doctoral students, faculty, organizational/institutional leaders) explicitly acknowledge students’ identity development and intentionally incorporate opportunities for reflection and growth as part of the doctoral curriculum, rather than assume that identity development occurs “naturally.” In this paper, we provide specific recommendations for different stakeholders. Recommendation for Researchers: Our literature review focused on studies that examined the identity development of doctoral students in the education sciences. We recommend further discipline-specific research and synthesis of such research to uncover similarities and differences across various disciplines and contexts. Impact on Society: Doctoral students have the potential to become and lead future generations of educators and scholars. Taking a sociocultural and system-level approach regarding the successful identity development of doctoral students is necessary to better support and cultivate a diverse group of future scholars who are well-equipped to lead innovations and solve problems both within and outside academia. Future Research: Possible areas of future research include focusing on the experiences of students who leave their programs prior to completion (and thus not developing their identity as scholars), investigating specific knowledge, skills, and attitudes associated with activities that studies have claimed contribute to identity development, and examining phenomena or traits that are seen as more biologically determined and less modifiable (e.g., attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, dyslexia, and mental health differences) in relation to doctoral students’ identity development. Finally, we recommend that future research should look into the underlying norms and nuances of ontological, epistemological, and methodological roots of programs and disciplines as part of the “story” of developing identity as scholar. Norms, and related philosophical underpinnings of typical doctoral education (and the tasks these translate into) were not explored in the reviewed literature.

Aim/Purpose: Doctoral students’ experiences in PhD programs could be a journey of identity evolution. Existing research on doctoral students’ identities has typically been conducted by faculties. As the main character in the identity evolution process, it is critical to understand doctoral students’ interpretation of their own identities and identity development in PhD programs. The purpose of this paper is to examine how and what education doctoral students discovered when they used self-study and relevant qualitative methodologies (e.g., auto-ethnography) to investigate their identities and identity development through their own practices in PhD programs. Background: This research began as part of a larger project to synthesize studies on doctoral students’ identities. A cluster of articles was identified in which students were examining their experiences as developing individuals from the perspective of identities and identity development. In contrast to most of the previous research on doctoral education, this collection of articles was written by doctoral students as part of their academic and professional practice. Methodology: The larger qualitative systematic review (i.e., qualitative evidence synthesis) of doctoral students’ identity development began with database searches that were not restricted by year (e.g., PsycINFO, Education Research Complete, and Education Resources Information Center). Thirteen articles written by doctoral students discussing their identities and identity development in PhD programs were further identified from selected articles ranging from 2009 to 2021. These articles and their implications were analyzed using a qualitative research synthesis approach. Contribution: Although scholars have looked at doctoral students’ identities and identity development from various viewpoints, the current investigation deepens the understanding of this focus from doctoral students’ own perspectives. Doctoral students are trained investigators with research skills and mindsets. As novice researchers and educators, their open and honest reflections about their challenges, opportunities, and development are worthwhile to identify significant aspects of their identities and identity development in PhD programs. Findings: There are two dimensions to the findings: the Approach Dimension and the Content Dimension. The Approach Dimension is concerned with how doctoral students investigated their identities and identity development, whereas the Content Dimension is concerned with what they found. Findings in the Approach Dimension show that doctoral students applied the self-study inquiry approach or used the notion of self-study inquiry to interpret their identity and identity development. The self-study inquiry encompasses five main features, including (1) Self-Initiated and Focused, (2) Improvement-Aimed, (3) Collaborative/Interactive, (4) Reflective Data Collection, and (5) Exemplar-Based Validation. Doctoral students examined the five self-study features both directly and indirectly in their studies. The investigation revealed four major themes in the Content Dimension, including (1) Identity Development as a Dynamic Process, (2) Multiple Identities, (3) Learning Contexts, and (4) Socialization. Recommendations for Practitioners: The findings suggest that practitioners in PhD programs should be aware of the existence, process, and dynamics of identity evolution in doctoral programs. The best possible way for PhD program administrators, faculties, and advisors to support doctoral students’ growth and identity development is to incorporate doctoral students’ own insights into practice. Given the unprecedented influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on the educational environment and the diversity of doctoral students, it is crucial to discover how doctoral students use structured research methods to reflect, learn, and self-support their identity development during their PhD programs. The self-study inquiry process would be a helpful and effective approach to support doctoral students’ advancement. For instance, PhD programs could create self-evaluation assignments or courses that incorporate both self-study and identity development concepts. Recommendation for Researchers: When studying doctoral students’ identity development, it is critical to emphasize the essence of identity, which is people’s perceptions of who they are. We recommend that researchers who study doctoral students could further integrate doctoral students’ insights about their own identity status (e.g., multiple identities) into research. Impact on Society: Successful completion of PhD programs is a critical foundation for doctoral students to serve society as expert researchers and educators. Support for the growth and development of doctoral students could facilitate the completion of their doctoral programs and strengthen their sense of agency through the lens of identity. Future Research: Future research could go beyond the field of education and expand to more disciplines to identify common and diverse factors influencing doctoral students’ identity and identity development across domains. Future research on the post-COVID-19 era and its implications for online programs must also be studied in connection with doctoral students’ identities and identity development.

Previous articleNext article No AccessSchools and AlienationStephen V. Dillon and James A. GroutStephen V. Dillon Search for more articles by this author and James A. Grout Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by The Elementary School Journal Volume 76, Number 8May, 1976 Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/461014 Views: 13Total views on this site Citations: 11Citations are reported from Crossref Copyright 1976 The University of ChicagoPDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Casey A. Knifsend, Guadalupe Espinoza, Jaana Juvonen The Role of Peer Relationships on Academic and Extracurricular Engagement in School, (Oct 2022): 451–467.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-07853-8_21Zohreh Vafa, Morteza Azizi, Mojtaba Elhami Athar Predicting Academic Alienation From Emotion Dysregulation, Social Competence, and Peer Relationships in School-Attending Girls: A Multiple-Regression Approach, Frontiers in Psychology 12 (Dec 2021).https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.755952Abdulvehap BOZ Öğretim Elemanlarının İstenmeyen Davranışları İle Öğrenci Yabancılaşması Arasındaki İlişki, Pamukkale University Journal of Education 49 (May 2020): 20–45.https://doi.org/10.9779/pauefd.532232Habibollah Naderi Heydari, Fereshteh Ba Ezat, Masoud Qolam Ali Lavasani, Sohail Rahimi Designing an Educational Mindfulness Program and Its Effectiveness on Students' Cognitive, Emotional and Educational Processes, Journal of Archives in Military Medicine 7, no.33 (Oct 2019).https://doi.org/10.5812/jamm.98188Hojjat Mahmoudi, Monica R. Brown, Javad Amani Saribagloo, Zahra Jalilzadeh-Mohammadi The effects of sex and race on academic alienation among Iranian students, Educational Studies 44, no.55 (Oct 2017): 594–607.https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2017.1390441Tina Hascher, Andreas Hadjar School alienation – Theoretical approaches and educational research, Educational Research 60, no.22 (Mar 2018): 171–188.https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2018.1443021Jaana Juvonen, Guadalupe Espinoza, Casey Knifsend The Role of Peer Relationships in Student Academic and Extracurricular Engagement, (Jan 2012): 387–401.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_18Ann V. Angell Democratic Climates in Elementary Classrooms: A Review of Theory and Research, Theory & Research in Social Education 19, no.33 (Jun 1991): 241–263.https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.1991.10505640James S. Leming School Curriculum and Social Development in Early Adolescence, Childhood Education 61, no.44 (Mar 1985): 257–262.https://doi.org/10.1080/00094056.1985.10520194Lee H. Ehman The American School in the Political Socialization Process, Review of Educational Research 50, no.11 (Jun 2016): 99–119.https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543050001099Devon J. Metzger, Robert D. Barr The Impact of School Political Systems on Student Political Attitudes, Theory & Research in Social Education 6, no.22 (Jun 1978): 48–79.https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.1978.10506029

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to present a critical race theory content analysis of research on technology and social studies education.Design/methodology/approachThis study, using a critical race theory (CRT) framework, investigates how social studies education scholars have critically addressed the intersection between technology and race/ethnicity through a content analysis of articles in the journalsTheory and Research in Social Education(TRSE) andContemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education(CITE) since 1990.FindingsThis paper contends that the interaction between technology and race/ethnicity is rarely critically examined in these two prominent social studies education research journals.Originality/valueIn light of this neglect, the paper discusses the need for an in‐depth analysis of the reification of low‐level pedagogical methods with racial/ethnic minority students, an unexplored area of research.