1. Understanding and Researching Disability in Higher Education: Emerging Perspectives ACPA 2015 Ellen Broido, Bowling Green State University Kirsten Brown, The University of Wisconsin Madison Edlyn Peña, California Lutheran University Susan Rankin, Penn State (retired) Lissa Stapleton, The University of Southern Mississippi Katherine Stygles, Bowling Green State University

2. In this program we will: Explore challenges Consider implications Interrogate assumptions Examine positionality Discuss techniques for inclusive assessment and research

3. Checking in Please tell us who you are? Include information about your institution and position. What do you hope to learn in today’s session?

4. Why Research Disability? 11% of college students have a disability. This number is growing. Although the data about faculty and staff with disabilities is not systematically collected, it is also believed to be rising. There is not enough information about the experiences of disabled people in higher education.

5. Kinds of Disabilities The next three slides present demographic data from Raue and Lewis 2011 regarding kinds of disabilities. The purpose of these slides is to illustrate how formatting with small print can be difficult to read and how collapsing disability categories changes data interpretation.

6. Kinds of Disabilities Learning disabilities = 31% of students with disabilities ADD and ADHD = 18% of students with disabilities Mental illness, psychological or psychiatric = 15% of students with disabilities Heath and chronic conditions= 11% of students with disabilities Mobility or orthopedic = 7% of students with disabilities Hearing = 4% of students with disabilities Seeing =3% of students with disabilities Cognitive or intellectual = 3% of students with disabilities Brain injury = 2% of students with disabilities Autism = 2% of students with disabilities Speaking = 1% of students with disabilities

7. Kinds of Disabilities In this slide, we demonstrate how taking the above categories and trying to narrow them down by collapsing into “other” creates problems. If we define “other” as any disability less than 5% combined into one lump. Here we have: hearing, seeing cognitive or intellectual disabilities, traumatic brain injury, autism spectrum disorder, and speaking. The “other” category is 15% of the student population and researchers lose detail.

8. Kinds of Disabilities Another approach that researchers use is to drop categories that do not have a “enough” students. In this slide we drop all types of disability that do not have more than 5%. This results in a concept of students with disabilities where hearing, seeing, autism, speaking, etc are absent.

9. Purpose The purpose of this presentation is to 1) Identify methodological considerations for doing disability research 2) Describe challenges, suggest strategies, and propose solutions

10. We Are… A mix of disabled and temporarily-able bodied women scholars. We have studied campus climate, activism, and identity regarding disability within higher education.

11. Discussion Question How would you develop a survey or interview protocol that was inclusive of people with disabilities?

12. Methodological Issues in Disability Studies Research Empirical research is scarce Disability studies is typically theoretical Methodological issues are not given much attention This has negative consequences

13. Divergent Theoretical Paradigms There are 4 Theoretical Paradigms 1) Medical Model 2) Minority Model 3) Social Constructionist 4) Social Justice

14. Four Methodological Concerns These concerns are: 1)Researcher’s positionality, 2)Language and labeling, 3)Accessing participants, 4)Working with human subjects review boards

15. Researcher’s Positionality Five components of positionality 1) Biases, values, and experiences 2) Own and participants’ social identities 3) Power or privilege 4) Lived experience 5) Intersectionality

16. Language and Labeling Four options: 1)People first language. For example Student with Disability 2) Identity first. For example autistic person. 3) Participants’ preferred language. For example, Kirsten is dyslexic. 4) For collective references, disabled/people/with disabilities

17. Accessing Participants Cultivating trust is imperative. Gatekeepers can assist and include disability coordinators or disability organizations. It is imperative to build rapport.

18. Human Subjects Review Boards Vulnerable populations Scope and focus Reputational recruiting

19. Research Design Considerations: Qualitative Data Collection Either Synchronous or Asynchronous Trustworthiness

20. Research Design Considerations: Quantitative Operational Definitions Survey Accessibility Both Design and Assistive Technology Data Cleaning

21. Recommendations: Universal Research Design Respects participants Involves participants Is fully accessible Considers privilege and oppression Has meaningful practical outcomes Explore identity intersections and influence of researcher positionality

22. Small Group Work At this time we are going to spend 15 minutes working in small groups. We will divide into two groups. Practitioners are in group 1 and researchers or graduate students are in group 2.

23. Small Group Questions How could you use these concepts to shape your assessment or research efforts? What challenges are you facing/do you anticipate facing as you conduct your research/assessment? Which model presented is useful in your work with people with disabilities? What are the strengths and limitations? What questions remain for you?

24. Report Back Summarize your study Common themes across studies Areas for improvement

25. Questions Access our PowerPoint, articles, and resources at: https://disabilityresearchinhighereducation.wordpress.com/

26. For Further Information Ellen Broido, Bowling Green State University ebroido@bgsu.eduebroido@bgsu.edu Kirsten Brown, University of Wisconsin – Madison krbrown7@wisc.edukrbrown7@wisc.edu Edlyn Peña, California Lutheran University epena@callutheran.eduepena@callutheran.edu Susan Rankin, Penn State (retired) sxr2@psu.edusxr2@psu.edu Lissa Stapleton, University of Southern Mississippi lissa.stapleton@msu.edu lissa.stapleton@msu.edu Katherine Stygles, Bowling Green State University kstygle@bgsu.edukstygle@bgsu.edu