Table 2: Overview of participants for Study Two Primary disability University students with disability Community members with disability School students with disability Hearing disability 2 0 0 Learning disability 3 3 1 Mobility disability 6 3 1 Visual disability 3 2 1 Medical disability 11 2 0 Mental health disability 19 1 0 Communication disability 4 4 6 Other disability 0 0 0 Total 48 15 9 Data collection Data was collected between July and December 2017. The semi-structured interviews provided an opportunity for the researchers to explore each participant’s personal experience and perception of attending university with a disability. As recommended by Minichello et al. (1995), interviews were conducted as “purposeful conversations”. Semi-structured interview guides were developed from the themes identified by Study One and the gaps identified in the literature review. Researchers asked questions using the guide but, congruent with the semi-structured approach were not obliged to follow the guide exactly. Rather, researchers used prompting to obtain more detailed and in-depth answers from participants, followed up on new knowledge emerging during an interview, and adapted questions to suit each participant’s situation. Researchers used paraphrasing to clarify meaning and to assist participants to reflect upon their experiences. A copy of the interview guide is located in Appendix C3. Participants were given the opportunity to select the mode of being interviewed that suited them best, including face-to-face (where available), telephone, online videoconferencing, or by written correspondence. Most interviews were conducted by telephone (n=70). Two interviews were completed by email correspondence. The telephone interviews were audio-recorded and then transcribed verbatim. The email interviews were transferred verbatim to a Word document. For each text, pseudonyms for participants were assigned using a random name generator. The texts were initially stored by each university within an NVivo project. Later, NVivo projects were shared between researchers using Cloudstor to facilitate joint analysis of the texts. Research team Ten researchers with qualitative research expertise from the five partner universities were involved in data collection and the initial phases of analysis. To facilitate communication and
teamwork, regular researcher meetings were conducted. These meetings were held by videoconference. The meetings held prior to data collection also included discussion of researchers’ preunderstandings, strategies to maintain a naïve perspective during data collection, and strategies to ensure consistency across the universities in the topics covered in the interviews. Strategies included: detailed discussions of the topic guides; use of CSU Blackboard site to discuss relevant topic threads; and regular minuted and recorded meetings of the qualitative researchers. Data analysis The data were qualitatively analysed within a hermeneutic framework using three iterative phases (Figure 1). Figure 1: Three phases of analysis Table 3 provides an overview of the data analysis that is described in detail below. Table 3: Phases of data analysis Phase of data analysis Data set Researchers Strategy One: initial coding of each interview text 48 USWD texts 15 CPWD texts 9 SSWD texts Five researchers, one researcher from each partner university completed initial coding for their university’s data Code according to research questions Broad nodes and example provided by lead researcher Two: analysis of each subpopulation data set USWD data set CPWD data set SSWD data set Two researchers analysed each subpopulation data set (i.e. three pairs of researchers) Refine categories by searching for similarities and duplicates Group categories to form emerging themes for each set Three: analysis of the entire data set Entire data set The lead qualitative researcher combined all data sets and created a condensed thematic analysis. Three researchers progressed the analysis through further discussion, writing, and re-writing. Refine themes and subthemes Identify commonalities and differences across groups Note: USWD: university students with disability; CMWD: community members with disability; SSWD: school students with disability. Phase One – Analysis of individual interview texts.
Appendix B6. Papers that examined the levers and barriers, or experiences of university students with disability at a regional university in Australia Year Authors Research focus/question Design Sample Results 2005 Ryan & Brown Investigated the nature of USWD learning difficulties & the ways in which lecturers responded to their learning needs. Overarching methodology not stated. Method: semi-structured interviews. 8 students that identified that they had ‘a range of difficulties with learning’. Students reported a perceived lack of understanding and support from lecturers and difficulty in receiving adjustments. Many regretted disclosing their difficulties after experiencing negative attitudes from staff and students. 2005 Ryan Investigated students with learning difficulties learning experiences. Overarching methodology not stated. Method: semi-structured interviews. 8 students that identified that they had ‘a range of difficulties with learning’. Students desired understanding from lecturers as they attempted to navigate the barriers of an educational system that questions their legitimacy of being there.