Problematizing Reflexivity, Validity, and Disclosure: Research by People with Disabilities About Disability

Abstract

In this article, I explore the potential for people with disabilities to conduct research about disability in education. Drawing upon Rasmussen (2006), I consider whether merely sharing one aspect of identity with participants is enough to gain an emic (insider) perspective when doing research. I argue that not only should we problematize our own identity, but that research should change the researcher’s own identity and that the degree to which research promotes this change is an essential aspect of formal validity of the research. Finally, I propose some practical implications and offer some advice for researchers conducting research on disability.

“I Didn’t Know People With Disabilities Could Grow Up to Be Adults”: Disability History, Curriculum, and Identity in Special Education

“…Because of that lived experience, I approach my work from a disability studies in education perspective, which holds that disability is socially and politically situated in schools to mark particular bodies and minds as “abnormal.” Importantly, this theoretical and philosophical stance requires that I interrogate my own positionality and critically consider how my own body, mind, and history shape my work, alongside informing the methodology for the study. Sheldon (2017) notes that understanding researcher disability positionality is undervalued in special education research, which creates “a situation where much of the field of special education is comprised of writing about those with disabilities.” (p. 984). As a White disabled cisgender woman, I also name the privilege I held in special education due to my race and class.…”

Rethinking the concept of ‘subaltern-researcher’: different D/deaf identities and communicative modalities as conflict factors in in-depth interviews

“…I had to constantly reflect the multiple overlaps between culture and communication in my research, in order to make the research instruments-that is, both my body and the research's communicative mediation-as valid and reliable as possible. A key aspect of research validity is the researchers' self-reflexivity regarding necessary changes in their attitudes and perspectives as a result of interacting with the field (Sheldon, 2017). This reflexivity enabled me to become aware of the ways in which my devotion to 'proper' qualitative methods and written format reflected my attempt to properly follow 'hearing' academic practices.…”

“…Reflexivity is crucial when the researcher is part of the research population to some extent (Berger, 2015). This aspect may encourage fluidity within the researcher’s status as an ‘insider’ or ‘outsider’ (Roer-Strier and Sands, 2015), especially while sharing a certain disability with the participants (Sheldon, 2017). As an HH researcher, therefore, reflexive aspects are essential in the current research, especially given the tiny number of scholars who self-identify as such (e.g.…”

“…The two fundamental questions asked at the beginning of this article regarding my position in my research as having a questionable ‘subaltern-researcher’ status, and its conjunction with my methodology, raise the importance of reflexivity and lived experience of oppression as key concepts. Critical research is not as inclusive when it ends, as demonstrated by inaccessible academic conferences (Sheldon, 2017) and the great career barriers faced by d/Deaf academics (Smith and Andrews, 2015). Thus, as a disabled scholar, I chose to prioritize my research participants as part of an activist act, in order to position them, and myself, as legitimate members of the academic space.…”

“…In the current research, I used intersectional reflexivity as a key strategy. Sharing a certain disability with a participant does not necessarily make a researcher an 'insider', but it does force her to examine her various identities and question them constantly (Sheldon, 2017). Thus, my reflexive writing included an examination of my interactions with the interviewees, in order to reflect the intersection of nationalism, gender, age, religiosity, and communicative choice.…”