Civil rights pioneer Ida B. Wells said that “the way to right wrongs is to turn the light of truth upon them.” The QSIDE Institute uses the cutting edge of data science and mathematical modeling to focus that light. Our work encompasses:
- Data-driven research-to-action-to-justice projects addressing education equity, diversity and inclusion in arts/media, criminal justice, environmental justice, health equity, human trafficking, and more;
- Data, evaluation, and research consulting for non-profits and mission-driven organizations; and
- Education and community-building programs to grow our nation’s capacity for informed and careful work at the interface of data science and social justice.
In all our endeavors, QSIDE adopts a community participatory action model, and we exist as a loose and nimble network of quantitative scholars, justice subject matter experts, activists, and other stakeholders. Formally instantiated as a 501(c)3 nonprofit in 2019, QSIDE is led by its co-founders, Chad Topaz, Ph.D. and Jude Higdon, Ed.D.
Fundamental Principles
QSIDE and its affiliates act in accordance with these fundamental principles:
- Scientific consensus builds the foundation of knowledge. If you do not believe in science, or scientific consensus, then our organization is not appropriate for you.
- Populations and individuals with perceived, ascribed, or innate personal characteristics such as gender, gender expression, sex, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, national origin, age, religion, disability status, family status, socioeconomic background and a number of other personally-identified characteristics, have been historically excluded from and/or hindered in full and equitable participation in society. This exclusion has had, and continues to have, deleterious personal, professional, and sociological impact. If you deny the existence of oppression based on these characteristics, or if you do not believe it is worth addressing, then our organization is not appropriate for you.
- Bringing the two previous points together, good faith debate, discussion, research, and activism are meritorious. Disagreement among members about how to work towards social justice may occur, and we ask that it take place in a respectful and productive manner. However, our organization makes no room for arguing established scholarly consensus, unless such an argument is accompanied by a scholarly approach and a demonstrated intention or attempt to research alternative models.