To challenge "objective" conventions in quantitative methodology, higher education scholars have increasingly employed critical lenses (e.g., quantitative criticalism, QuantCrit). Yet, specific approaches remain opaque. We use a multimethod design to examine researchers' use of critical approaches and explore how authors discussed embedding strategies to disrupt dominant quantitative thinking. We draw data from a systematic scoping review of critical quantitative higher education research between 2007 and 2021 (N = 34) and semi-structured interviews with 18 manuscript authors. Findings illuminate (in)consistencies across scholars' incorporation of critical approaches, including within study motivations, theoretical framing, and methodological choices. Additionally, interview data reveal complex layers to authors' decision-making processes, indicating that decisions about embracing critical quantitative approaches must be asset-based and intentional. Lastly, we discuss findings in the context of their guiding frameworks (e.g., quantitative criticalism, QuantCrit) and offer implications for employing and conducting research about critical quantitative research.