This paper suggests that synergies can be produced by using geospatial analyses as a bridge between traditional qualitative-quantitative distinctions in education research. While mapping tools have been effective for informing education policy studies, especially in terms of educational access and choice, they have also been underutilized and underdeveloped. This paper focuses on the potential benefits of expanding geospatial analysis, which has traditionally been heavily quantitative in its orientation, by incorporating qualitative research, including the accounts of lived experiences and perceptions that guide and shape institutional and individual behaviors and decisions. To that end, the paper proposes an agenda for mixed-methods research by drawing on new advances in the fields of human and critical geography.
BourdieuP. (1999). The weight of the world. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
2.
BrownR.BairdW.RosolenL. (1999). Spatial analysis in educational administration: Exploring the role of GIS (Geographic Information Systems) as an evaluation tool in the public school board setting. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Evaluation Society Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
3.
Burdick-WillJ.KeelsM.SchubleT. (2013). Closing and opening schools: The association between neighborhood characteristics and the location of new educational opporutnities in a large urban district. Journal of Urban Affairs, 35(1), 59–80.
4.
ButlerT. (2003). Living in the bubble: Gentrification and its “others” in North London. Urban Studies, 40(12), 2469–2486.
5.
ButlerT.HamnettC.RamsdenM.WebberR. (2007). The best, the worst and the average: Secondary school choice and education performance in East London. Journal of Education Policy, 22(1), 7–29.
6.
ChoiD. (2010). The impact of competing definitions of quality on the geographical distribution of teachers. Educational Policy, 24(2), 359–397.
7.
CobbC. (2003). Geographic methods and policy using Geographic Information Systems to inform education policy. Educational Research Quarterly, 27(1), 28–39.
8.
CramptonJ. (2010). Mapping: A critical introduction to cartography and GIS. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
9.
CreswellJ.ClarkV. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
10.
ElwoodS. (2006). Critical issues in participatory GIS: Deconstructions, reconstructions, and new research directions. Transactions in GIS, 10(5), 693–708.
11.
ElwoodS. (2009). Multiple representations, significations and epistemologies in community-based GIS. In CopeM.ElwoodS. (Eds.), Qualitative GIS (pp. 57–75). London: Sage.
12.
ElwoodS.CopeM. (2009). Introduction: Qualitative GIS: Forging mixed methods through representations, analytical innovations, and conceptual engagements. In CopeM.ElwoodS. (Eds.), Qualitative GIS: A mixed methods approach (pp. 3–21). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
13.
Gabay-EgoziL. (2016). School choice in a stratified geography: Class, geography, otherness, and moral boundaries. Journal of Education Policy, 31(1), 1–27. doi:10.1080/02680939.2015.1047410
14.
GreeneJ. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Francisco, CA: Wiley.
15.
GulosinoC.LubienskiC. (2011). School’s strategic responses to competition in segregated urban areas: Patterns in school locations in metropolitan Detroit. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 19(13).
16.
GulsonK. (2007). Mobilizing space discourses: Politics and educational policy change. In GulsonK.SymesC. (Eds.), Spatial theories of education: Policy and geography matters (pp. 37–56). New York, NY: Routledge.
17.
GulsonK. (2011). Education policy, space and the city: Markets and the (in)visibility of race. New York, NY: Routledge.
HawthorneT.KwanM. (2012). Using GIS and perceived distance to understand the unequal geographies of healthcare in lower-income urban neighbourhoods. The Geographical Journal, 178(1), 18–30.
20.
JohnsonR.OnwuegbuzieA. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26.
21.
JonesB.HarrisK.TateW. (2015). Ferguson and beyond: A descriptive epidemiological study using geospatial analysis. The Journal of Negro Education, 84(3), 231–253.
22.
KniggeL.CopeM. (2006). Grounded visualization: Integrating the analysis of qualitative and quantitative data through grounded theory and visualization. Environment and Planning A, 38, 2021–2037.
23.
KwanM. (1998). Space-time and integral measures of individual accessibility: A comparative analysis using a point-based framework. Geographical Analysis, 3, 191–216.
24.
KwanM. (2004). GIS methods in time-geographic research: Geocomputation and geovisualization of human activity patterns. Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography, 86(4), 267–280.
25.
KwanM. (2008a). Critical GIS. In KempK. K. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Geographic Information Science (pp. 57–59). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.
26.
KwanM. (2008b). From oral histories to visual narratives: Representing the post-September 11 experiences of the Muslim women in the USA. Social & Cultural Geography, 9(6), 653–669. doi:10.1080/14649360802292462
27.
KwanM.DingG. (2008). Geo-narrative: Extending Geographic Information Systems for narrative analysis in qualitative and mixed-method research. The Professional Geographer, 60(4), 443–465.
28.
KwanM.SchwanenT. (2009). Quantitative revolution 2: The critical (re)turn. The Professional Geographer, 61(3), 283–291.
29.
LubienskiC. (2005). School choice as a civil right: District responses to competition and equal educational opportunity. Equity & Excellence in Education, 38, 331–341.
30.
LubienskiC.DoughertyJ. (2009). Mapping educational opportunity: Spatial analysis and school choices. American Journal of Education, 115, 485–491.
31.
LubienskiC.GulosinoC.WeitzelP. (2009). School choice and competitive incentives: Mapping the distribution of educational opportunities across local education markets. American Journal of Education, 115(4), 601–647.
32.
LubienskiC.LeeJ. (2017). Geo-spatial analyses in education research: The critical challenge and methodological possibilities. Geographical Research, 55(1), 89–99.
33.
LubienskiC.LeeJ.GordonL. (2013). Self-managing schools and access for disadvantaged students: Organizational behaviour and school admissions. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 48(1), 82–98.
34.
MasseyD. (2005). For space. London: Sage.
35.
MatthewsS.DetwilerJ.BurtonL. (2005). Geo-ethnography: Coupling geographic information analysis techniques with ethnographic methods in urban research. Cartographica, 40(4), 75–90.
36.
McMillanJ. (2016). Fundamentals of education research. Boston, MA: Pearson.
37.
MulvenonS.WangK.McKenzieS.AirolaD. (2006). A case study: Using geographic information systems for education policy analysis. Educational Research Quarterly, 30, 44–54.
38.
NayakA. (2003). Race, place and globalization: Youth cultures in a changing world. Oxford, UK: Berg.
39.
PavlovskayaM. (2002). Mapping urban change and changing GIS: Other views of economic restructuring. Gender, Place & Culture, 9(3), 281–289. doi:10.1080/0966369022000003897
40.
PavlovskayaM. (2004). Other transitions: Multiple economies of Moscow households in the 1990s. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 94(2), 329–351. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8306.2004.09402011.x
41.
PavlovskayaM. (2006). Theorizing with GIS: A tool for critical geographies?Environment and Planning A, 38, 2003–2020.
RichardsM. (2014). The gerrymandering of school attendance zones and the segregation of public schools: A geospatial analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 51(6), 1119–1157.
44.
SchultzL. (2014). Inequitable dispersion: Mapping the distribution of highly qualified teachers in St. Louis metropolitan public elementary schools. Educational Policy Analysis and Archives, 22. Retrieved from doi:10.14507/epaa.v22n90.2014
45.
SchuurmanN. (2010). Critical GIS. In WarfB. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of geography (pp. 614–616). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
46.
SchuurmanN.PrattG. (2002). Care of the subject: Feminism and critiques of GIS. Gender, Place & Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography, 9(3), 291–299.
47.
ShenY.KwanM.ChaiY. (2013). Investigating commuting flexibility with GPS data and 3D geovisualization: A case study of Beijing, China. Journal of Transport Geography, 32, 1–11.
48.
TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
49.
TateW. (2012). Research on schools, neighborhoods, and communities: Toward civic responsibility. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
50.
TaylorC. (2002). Geography of the “new” education market: Secondary school choice in England and Wales. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Publishing.
51.
TaylorC. (2009). Choice, competition, and segregation in a United Kingdom urban education market. American Journal of Education, 115, 549–568.
52.
TheobaldR. (2005). School choice in Colorado Springs: The relationship between parental decisions, location and neighbourhood characteristics. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 14(2), 92–111.
53.
YoonE. (2015). Young people’s cartographies of school choice: The urban imaginary and moral panic. Children’s Geographies, 14(1), 101–114. doi:10.1080/14733285.2015.1026875
54.
YoonE.LubienskiC. (2017). How do marginalized families engage school choice in inequitable urban landscapes? A critical geographic approach. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 25(42). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/2655.
55.
ZhangH.CowenD. (2009). Mapping educational achievement and public school under the No Child Left Behind legislation. Southern Geographer, 49(1), 24–40.
