The field of special education has privileged positivistic paradigms and, consequently, has underutilized qualitative methods. For those skeptical of this claim or curious about its accuracy, the purpose of this literature review was to: (a) understand the prevalence of qualitative methods within the broader context of the research methods published in top special education journals and (b) compare quantitative and qualitative features of the qualitative research published in those journals. Using a positivistic lens historically privileged in special education, we demonstrate in this review that quantitative methods remain the most prevalent method in special education research and that quantitative ways of knowing often infiltrate qualitative research in top special education journals. Thus, rather than solely focusing on increasing the diversity of methods used, the more impactful and pressing need is to increase the diversity of thought (i.e., paradigms) represented in the researchers, reviewers, editors, and gatekeepers that determine the paradigms that are present and privileged in special education research.
AnfaraV. A.Jr.BrownK. M.MangioneT. L. (2002). Qualitative analysis on stage: Making the research process more public. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 28–38. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X031007028
2.
BaglieriS.ValleJ. W.ConnorD. J.GallagherD. J. (2011). Disability studies in education: A need for a plurality of perspectives on disability. Remedial and Special Education, 32(4), 267–278. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932510362200
3.
BovedaM.AnnammaS. A. (2023). Beyond making a statement: An intersectional framing of the power and possibilities of positioning. Educational Researcher, 52(5), 259–319. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X231167149
4.
BovedaM.McCrayE. D. (2021). Writing (for) our lives: Black feminisms, interconnected guidance, and qualitative research in special education. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 34(6), 496–514. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2020.1771465
5.
BrantlingerE.JimenezR.KlingnerJ.PugachM.RichardsonV. (2005). Qualitative studies in special education. Exceptional Children, 71(2), 195–207. https://doi.org/10.1177/00144029050710020
6.
BraunV.ClarkeV.BoultonE.DaveyL.McEvoyC. (2020). The online survey as a qualitative research tool. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 24(6), 641–654. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2020.1805550
7.
CeglowskiD.BacigalupaC.PeckE. (2011). Aced out: Censorship of qualitative research in the age of “scientifically based research.”Qualitative Inquiry, 17(8), 679–686. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800411415497
8.
CollinsC. S.StocktonC. M. (2018). The central role of theory in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 17(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406918797475
9.
ConnorD. J. (2013). Who “owns” dis/ability? The cultural work of critical special educators as insider-outsiders. Theory & Research in Social Education, 41(4), 494–513. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2013.838741
10.
CorrC.ChudzikM.OhJ. R.LoveH. R.SnodgrassM. R. (2023). Mixed methods journal reviewing in early childhood special education. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 43(3), 203–213. https://doi.org/10.1177/02711214231170587
11.
CorrC.LoveH.SnodgrassM. R.KernJ. L.ChudzikM. (2023). Methodological training in special education doctoral programs: A mixed-methods exploration. Teacher Education and Special Education, 46(2), 108–126. https://doi.org/10.1177/08884064221103902
12.
CorrC.SnodgrassM. R.GreenJ. C.MeadanH.SantosR. M. (2020). Mixed methods in early childhood special education research: Purposes, challenges, and guidance. Journal of Early Intervention, 42(1), 20–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053815119873096
13.
CreswellJ. W.CreswellJ. D. (2023). Research design qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage.
14.
CreswellJ. W.PothC. N. (2016). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage.
15.
FerriB. A.GallagherD.ConnorD. J. (2011). Pluralizing methodologies in the field of LD: From “what works” to what matters. Learning Disability Quarterly, 34(3), 222–231. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948711419276
16.
GreeneJ. C. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. Wiley & Sons.
17.
GreeneJ. C.CaracelliV. J.GrahamW. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), 255–274. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737011003255
18.
GubaE. G.LincolnY. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105–117). Sage.
19.
Journal Citation Reports. (2020). Journal title ranked by impact factor [Report].
20.
KingS.WangL.NylenB.EndersO. (2023). Prevalence of research design in special education: A survey of peer-reviewed journals. Remedial and Special Education, 44(6), 480–494. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325231152453
21.
King ThoriusK.LindoE. J.Martínez-ÁlvarezP.SullivanA. L. (2023). Introduction to the new editors of Exceptional Children: The editorial vision of the new team. Exceptional Children, 90(1), 4–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/00144029231196264
22.
KlingnerJ. K.BoardmanA. G. (2011). Addressing the “research gap” in special education through mixed methods. Learning Disability Quarterly, 34(3), 208–218. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948711417559
23.
KozleskiE. B. (2017). The uses of qualitative research: Powerful methods to inform evidence-based practice in education. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 42(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796916683710
24.
KuhnT. S. (1962). Historical structure of scientific discovery: To the historian discovery is seldom a unit event attributable to some particular man, time, and place. Science, 136(3518), 760–764. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.136.3518.760
25.
LedfordJ. R.LambertJ. M.PustejovskyJ. E.ZimmermanK. N.HollinsN.BartonE. E. (2023). Single-case-design research in special education: Next-generation guidelines and considerations. Exceptional Children, 89(4), 379–396. https://doi.org/10.1177/00144029221137656
26.
LekoM. M.HitchcockJ. H.LoveH. R.HouchinsD. E.ConroyM. A. (2022). Quality indicators for mixed-methods research in special education. Exceptional Children, 89, 432–448. https://doi.org/10.1177/00144029221141031
LincolnY. S.GubaE. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.
29.
MastropieriM. A.BerkeleyS.McDuffieK. A.GraffH.MarshakL.ConnersN. A.DiamondC. M.SimpkinsP.BowdeyF. R.FulcherA.ScruggsT. E.Cuenca-SanchezY. (2009). What is published in the field of special education? An analysis of 11 prominent journals. Exceptional Children, 76(1), 95–109. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290907600105
30.
MilnerI. V. H. R. (2007). Race, culture, and researcher positionality: Working through dangers seen, unseen, and unforeseen. Educational Researcher, 36(7), 388–400. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X07309471
PattonM. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice. Sage.
33.
PlotnerA. J.Smith HillR. B.WaltersC. B.RotherY. (2025). Contextualizing disability identity in the academic literature: A scoping review. Identity. Advanced online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/15283488.2025.2481133
34.
PugachM. C.MukhopadhyayA.Gomez-NajarroJ. (2014). Finally making good on the promise of qualitative research in special education? A response to the special issue. Remedial and Special Education, 35(6), 340–343. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932514545790
35.
The QR Collective. (2023). Reflexive quality criteria: Questions and indicators for purpose-driven special education qualitative research. Exceptional Children, 89(4), 449–466. https://doi.org/10.1177/00144029231168106
36.
SandelowskiM. (2018). A reluctant but necessary rebuttal to a rebuttal. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 12(4), 366–368. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689818799427
37.
SkeltonS. M. (2019). Situating my positionality as a Black woman with a dis/ability in the provision of equity-focused technical assistance: A personal reflection. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 32(3), 225–242. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2019.1576942
38.
SkrticT. M. (1986). The crisis in special education knowledge: A perspective on perspective. Focus on Exceptional Children, 18(7), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.17161/foec.v18i7.6880
39.
SkrticT. M. (1995). Disability and democracy: Reconstructing (special) education for postmodernity. Teachers College, Columbia University.
40.
StanleyC. A. (2007). When counter narratives meet master narratives in the journal editorial-review process. Educational Researcher, 36(1), 14–24. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X06298008
41.
TosteJ. R.LoganJ. A.ShogrenK. A.BoydB. A. (2023). The next generation of quality indicators for group design research in special education. Exceptional Children, 89(4), 359–378. https://doi.org/10.1177/00144029221150801
42.
TracyS. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10), 837–851. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410383121
43.
TrainorA. A.GraueE. (2014). Evaluating rigor in qualitative methodology and research dissemination. Remedial and Special Education, 35(5), 267–274. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932514528100
44.
TrainorA. A.LekoM. (2014). Qualitative special education research: Purpose, rigor, and contribution. Remedial and Special Education, 35(5), 263–266. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932514536996
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
