Maintaining methodological rigor in language assessment: A response to Randall et al.’s justice-oriented antiracist validity framework

Abstract

Recent proposals to reorient validity theory toward justice through a Justice-oriented Antiracist Validity (JAV) framework have sparked vigorous debate in educational and language assessment. While the JAV approach seeks to disrupt systemic inequities by centering antiracist principles and critical quantitative methodologies, its rejection of traditional validity models raises profound philosophical and methodological concerns. In this viewpoint, we respond to Randall et al. by arguing that maintaining rigorous, falsifiable approaches to validation remains essential for meaningful progress toward fairness and justice. We examine historical, ethical, and methodological limitations of the JAV framework, highlight practical challenges in operationalizing its principles across diverse contexts, and question the viability of QuantCrit as an analytic stance. We conclude by advocating for a pluralistic, collaborative profession that acknowledges critical perspectives without abandoning the methodological rigor essential for equitable assessment.