Abandoning Hope? What Mathematics Education Researchers Say About Why They Do What They Do
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A research study was designed to understand how a group of mathematics education researchers describe their scholarly work—why they do it and how their research relates to a specific conceptualization of culturally responsive pedagogy (CRP). In the analysis of interviews with 17 international mathematics education researchers, we distilled the scholars’ descriptions of their hopes for their scholarly action. The themes of these distillations include seven imperatives for research action: ‘communicate’, ‘investigate’, ‘make’, ‘change and move’, ‘position’, ‘humanize’, and ‘reflect’. Drawing on the interview data, each of these action themes is elaborated on and synthesized into action-focused questions (AFQs), intended as prompts for like-minded scholars to use in reflection on and choices for intentional scholarly action. Our rationale for focusing on why scholars do what they do is grounded in our claim that mathematics education research could have a greater impact on the practices in schools if researchers focused more explicitly on unpacking the why of their research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.067 | 0.132 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.051 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.030 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".