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 48 USWD texts Five researchers, one Code according to each interview text 15 CPWD texts researcher from each research questions 9 SSWD texts partner university Broad nodes and completed initial coding example provided by for their university’s data lead researcher Two: analysis of each USWD data set Two researchers Refine categories by subpopulation data set CPWD data set analysed each searching for SSWD data set subpopulation data set similarities and (i.e. three pairs of duplicates researchers) Group categories to form emerging themes for each set Three: analysis of the Entire data set The lead qualitative Refine themes and entire data set researcher combined all subthemes data sets and created a Identify condensed thematic commonalities and analysis. Three differences across researchers progressed groups the analysis through further discussion, writing, and re-writing. Note: USWD: university students with disability; CMWD: community members with disability; SSWD: school students with disability. Phase One – Analysis of individual interview texts.
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.
83_CSU_JulieCoyle_Accessible_FinalReport.docx