Beyond neutrality: QuantCrit as a methodological corrective in quantitative public administration research

Quantitative methods remain central in public administration research, but without a corrective lens, they can obscure the underlying dynamics they purport to measure. Building on Critical Race Theory’s critique of color-blind objectivity and the emerging QuantCrit literature, this article frames how conventional statistical practices, including feedback-driven policies, fixed classification schemes, and unexamined research standpoints, perpetuate racialized inequities. We position Quantitative Critical Race Theory (QuantCrit) as a methodological corrective, anchored by four tenets: the centrality of racism, the non-neutrality of numbers, the contingency of categories, and the necessity to incorporate marginalized voices. Applying these principles, we trace QuantCrit’s evolution, illustrate its relevance across public administration subfields (notably representative bureaucracy and public budgeting), and provide a practical roadmap for embedding reflexivity, asset-focused questions, and intersectional measures into quantitative designs. By shifting from mere demographic tabulation to interrogating the statistical logics that entrench racial inequities, QuantCrit empowers public administration scholars to move beyond documenting disparities and toward dismantling the institutional structures of systemic racism.