Table 2: Overview of participants for Study Two Primary disability University students Community members School students with with disability with disability 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
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
83_CSU_JulieCoyle_Accessible_FinalReport.docx