"

4 Research question and methodology

This study employs two distinct yet complementary approaches. First, it adopts an action research approach  (Brydon-Miller & Maguire, 2009), with research questions and sampling strategies oriented toward actionable knowledge given the recognition of the need for change driving the project. Second, it utilizes an environmental scanning approach to search and identify best practices and emerging trends in accessibility. Environmental scanning is used in higher education to identify changes in the external environment and inform institutional changes (and are thus action-oriented) (Lapin, 2004). In our study, environmental scanning activities were driven by a political agenda: advancing equitable change within our university (Johnson et al., forthcoming).

Two questions guided this research:

  1. What practices, ideas, knowledges could be useful for change-making to address oppressive accommodation systems?
  2. What pathways to access-centered education exist that provide an alternative relationship (e.g., anti-oppressive, anti-racist, anti-ablest) to accommodation and disclosure of disability status than the traditional processes found in HEIs?

The research used a qualitative, cross-sectional design, involving three methods: 1) web search; 2) key informant interviews; and 3) literature review.

Web search

The web search activities were led by three graduate student members of the research team and concentrated between July and December 2022. The purpose of the web search was to search for existing alternatives to traditional academic accommodation processes (i.e., the status quo) that could be used as examples or models to support real change at York University.

Our search strategy was iterative and guided by a disability justice framework and our lived experience as disabled, sick, and mad graduate students/researchers (Johnson et al., forthcoming). We started with a targeted search of institutional websites (primarily focused to SAS webpages where accommodation processes are typically outlined for students) and then broadened our search to include other grey literature sources[1]. Sources were included if we felt they could be used as models or examples of alternative pathways to academic access that we could learn from (Johnson et al., forthcoming).

A total of 33 digital sources were included and thematically analyzed. We utilized this initial web search to support the recruitment of key informants for interviews, recording contact information when available, and the development of interview guides ((Johnson et al., forthcoming)

Interviews

Interviews took place between January and June 2023. All interviews were conducted by the same CIPA team members who led the web search. The purpose of the interviews was to learn more about the alternatives to academic accommodations being implemented, including any barriers or gaps as well as unmet aspirations.

We started recruitment with individuals and organizations identified during our web search as well as those known to the research team. In our research, we called these experts ‘access leaders’. An invitation was also extended across departments at York University to identify student leaders involved in accessibility-related activism and later extended to two other similar-sized universities in the GTA. Lastly, snowball sampling was used to identify more access leaders.

We interviewed 37  access leaders, including students (n = 23), instructors/faculty (n = 12, two of whom were graduate students), and access advisors (n= 2, one of whom was a recent PhD graduate and also told us about their student experience). Interviews were semi-structured and between 45 and 90 minutes in length. All interviews took place virtually except three that were conducted asynchronously. Many participants chose to be identified in the research results. Participants who did not were given the opportunity to choose a pseudonym (marked throughout with an asterisk).

Analysis of interviews involved iterative team-based coding of full transcripts. This process took several months and used Dedoose qualitative data analysis software to help the team see emergent themes and patterns. Initial open coding was undertaken of several transcripts by multiple researchers and emergent codes were discussed by the full team in weekly meetings. Once the code book was established each transcript was coded by two researchers to ensure all relevant information was captured[2].

Interviewee Demographics

Twenty-eight of the 37 interviewees responded to an anonymous self-identification survey. All except one of the participants who completed the survey identified as disabled, person with a disability/living with an illness (including but not limited to mental, physical, long-term, temporary, or episodic), or D/deaf or hard of hearing. Almost half (n=12) of the respondents identified as having invisible disabilities, and just over one-third of respondents (n=10) identified as neurodiverse. Most survey respondents identified as a woman (n=19) while the remaining responses included man (n=5), non-binary (n=2), genderqueer (n=1), other (n=1) or preferred not to answer (n=1).[3]    The majority identified themselves as white (n = 17), while 9 people identified as racialized or person of colour, including two who identified as white-passing. Of the remaining two people, one chose other, and one did not respond. Most participants had completed a higher education degree: nine survey respondents had completed a doctoral degree, 14 completed a master’s degree, and the remaining completed a bachelor’s degree or some post-secondary education.

Literature Review

The literature review was in response to gaps and limitations in the earlier research activities. The purpose of the literature review was to situate critical questions about access in North American higher education settings (Fernandes & Cort, 2024, forthcoming). Mainstream higher education institutions in North America are historically white institutions (HWIs) because they are foundationally white supremacist structures embedded in settler colonial and transatlantic slave economies (cite ). It is imperative to engage a critical understanding of this institutional landscape which shapes experiences of racism, ableism, and access or lack thereof. The specific research questions guiding our review were:

  1. What has the literature on HWIs said in 2023 about the experiences of racialized members?
  2. What can we learn from this literature that can inform a more intersectional understanding of issues of racism, ableism, and access in HWIs?
  1. Keywords included combinations of terms such as disability, academic accommodations, disclosure, no disclosure, documentation, and no documentation alongside terms related to higher education (e.g., postsecondary education, college, university, and placement), and disability justice terminology (e.g., disability justice and access-centered). We started by searching Google, Google Scholar, and ProQuest databases. Our search was broad—we used many combinations of keyword searches; to ensure our search was also comprehensive, we added new search terms as they emerged in our findings. For example, using the above terms we learned about the existence of Disability Cultural Centers on some U.S. campuses. We then searched ‘Disability Cultural Centers’ on Google to investigate further. For more information about our search and section strategies, see Johnson et al. (forthcoming). ↵
  2. For more discussion on interview data collection and analysis, see Johnson et al. (forthcoming). ↵
  3. Participants could select more than one response that applied to them. ↵

License

Transforming Academic Access: Findings and Recommendations from the CIPA Project Copyright © by Sabine Fernandes; Sammy Jo Johnson; Cindy Jiang; Heather Wong; Kelston Cort; Lindsay Stephens, PhD; and Iris Epstein, PhD. All Rights Reserved.

Share This Book