Planning for participants’ varying needs and abilities in qualitative research

[This paper is part of the Focused Collection on Qualitative Methods in PER: A Critical Examination.] All people vary in their needs and abilities; however, typical research practices do not consider these variations, which likely impacts who participates in research studies. Additionally, few PER studies have investigated aspects of disability or reported disability identity. Combined, this means that PER researchers typically do not seek out the experiences of disabled people and disabled people might not have access to participate in research studies. In this paper, we demonstrate how a research team can use principles from Universal Design for Learning and the Variation Planning Tool to anticipate expectations of ability and create flexible options in a qualitative research study. We then demonstrate how different interview structures can impact disabled participants through a case study with three participants, all of whom self-identified as students with attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder. Finally, we conclude with implications and suggestions for researchers in planning their study designs. It is critical that, as physics education researchers, we anticipate, welcome, and support disabled participants in our research, particularly as interviews are a prevalent method in the field. Through the example presented in this paper, we hope to encourage researchers to examine their own methods through the lens of accessibility and to offer alternative formats in their research design as a means to combat ableism and to provide access to all research participants.

This article appears in the following collection:

Figure 1

Highlights of the differences between the medical model of disability and the social model of disability, based on what the model focuses on, the relationship between disability and impairment, where disability arises from and how access occurs. Modified from Goodley [54].

Figure 2

Two representations of an analysis using the Variation Planning Tool for two typical classroom practices: traditional lecture and individual clicker questions. On the left, the figure marks the six dimensions of analysis spread in a circle with shaded gray circles to denote a low load (white shading), a medium load (medium gray shading), and a high load (dark gray shading). The red, solid line shows the loading for traditional lecture while the orange, dashed line shows the loading for individual clicker questions. On the right, the VPT analysis is summarized in a table format, showing the high, medium, and low loadings for each dimension of ability.

Figure 3

Anticipated load for the oral interview structures and mitigating practices along the dimensions of ability in the VPT: physical/mobility ($\mathrm{Phys}/\mathrm{Mob}$), hearing, visual, emotional or mental health ($\mathrm{Emo}/\mathrm{MH}$), cognitive (Cog), and health.

Figure 4

Anticipated load for the document interview structures and mitigating practices along the dimensions of ability in the VPT: physical/mobility ($\mathrm{Phys}/\mathrm{Mob}$), hearing, visual, emotional or mental health ($\mathrm{Emo}/\mathrm{MH}$), cognitive (Cog), and health.

Figure 5

Anticipated load for the companion-guided interview structures and mitigating practices along the dimensions of ability in the VPT: physical/mobility ($\mathrm{Phys}/\mathrm{Mob}$), hearing, visual, emotional or mental health ($\mathrm{Emo}/\mathrm{MH}$), cognitive (Cog), and health.

Figure 6

Anticipated load for the focus group interview structures and mitigating practices along the dimensions of ability in the VPT: physical/mobility ($\mathrm{Phys}/\mathrm{Mob}$), hearing, visual, emotional or mental health ($\mathrm{Emo}/\mathrm{MH}$), cognitive (Cog), and health.

Figure 7

Summary of interview results for Participants B, J, and K along the cognitive (Cog) and emotional or mental health ($\mathrm{Emo}/\mathrm{MH}$) dimensions.