Empowering Disabled Voices: A Practical Guide for Methodological Shifts in Biology Education Research
Abstract
Biology education research provides important guidance for educators aiming to ensure access for disabled students. However, there is still work to be done in developing similar guidelines for research settings. By using critical frameworks that amplify the voices of people facing multiple forms of marginalization, there is potential to transform current biology education research practices. Many biology education researchers are still in the early stages of understanding critical disability frameworks, such as Disability Critical Race Studies (DisCrit), which consists of seven tenets designed to explore the intersecting experiences of ableism and racism. Our Research Methods Essay uses DisCrit as a model framework and pulls from other related critical disability frameworks to empower disabled voices in biology education research. Drawing from existing scholarship, we discuss how biology education researchers can design, conduct, and share research findings. Additionally, we highlight strategies that biology education scholars can use in their research to support access for participants. We propose the creation and sharing of Access and Equity Maps to help plan—and make public—the steps researchers take to foster access in their research. We close by discussing frequently asked questions researchers may encounter in taking on critical frameworks, such as DisCrit.
INTRODUCTION
A wealth of disability-related research and scholarship shows that biology education, as a field, is clearly interested in disability as a matter of diversity. Much existing biology education research about disability predominantly addresses education and classroom practices that can promote equity, inclusion, access, and justice for students with disabilities. For example, Reinholz and Ridgway (2021) introduced the field to a framework called Disability Justice and offered concrete strategies for instructors to promote access talk in their teaching. Orndorf and colleagues (2022) described the design and implementation of a conference for biology educators and American Sign Language interpreters to explore and model Universal Design for Learning (UDL) in biology instruction. Hales (2020) offered examples of inclusive language for genetics instructors to use when discussing topics related to disability. Additional research in biology education has investigated experiences of disability in specific contexts. These contexts include the experiences of disability in research (e.g., Gin et al., 2022), active learning (e.g., Gin et al., 2020), and in biology courses when students are asked to speak in front of the entire class (e.g., Busch et al., 2023). Other biology education research has focused on the experiences of students with disabilities1 in specific groups such as those with depression (e.g., Cooper et al., 2020b; Busch et al., 2022; Mohammed et al., 2022; Araghi et al., 2023), anxiety (e.g., England et al., 2017; Cooper et al., 2018; Brigati et al., 2020; Downing et al., 2020; Hsu and Goldsmith, 2021; Mohammed et al., 2021), attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and learning disabilities (e.g., Pfeifer et al., 2020, 2021, 2023), and the Deaf community (Braun et al., 2017, 2018; Gormally, 2017; Gormally and Marchut, 2017; Majocha et al., 2018; Marchut and Gormally, 2019). These contributions tend to advocate for crucial changes in biology classrooms and research mentoring, yet our field is still developing strategies to promote equity, inclusion, access, and justice for students with disabilities in the research process itself.
The purpose of our Research Methods Essay is to offer suggestions in how to design research processes that center disability and additional facets of individuals’ identities using critical perspectives. We attempt to accomplish our aim by using one particular framework called Disability Critical Race Studies (DisCrit) as a model. DisCrit has not been widely used in biology education research, to date. Yet the theory is suited to address questions about topics such as the social constructions of race and ability, material and psychological impacts of ableism and racism, and the legal and historical aspects of ability and race. Identifying these legal and historical aspects can shed light on the origins of policies or practices that lead to the denial of educational rights in biology contexts and help explain how our current status quo came to be and is (re)created in the biology education research structures we propagate.
In our article, we briefly explain the history of DisCrit and introduce the theory. From there, we walk readers through four phases of the research process. We highlight some potential applications of DisCrit and share strategies from additional disability-related frameworks that biology education scholars can apply to empower disabled voices throughout the research process. We contextualize the strategies we share using examples from a hypothetical biology education research study conducted by Dr. Okazaki and a team of participant-researchers. We propose and model the use of an “Access and Equity Map” as a tool to guide researchers’ decisions in the data collection process. We close our Research Methods Essay by discussing 1) the importance of equitably compensating participant-researchers, 2) strategies researchers may wish to consider when balancing nuance in their analysis with participants’ anonymity and confidentiality, and 3) some of the potential barriers researchers may encounter when taking up and implementing DisCrit-informed scholarship.
BACKGROUND
Two broad theoretical perspectives, the medical and social model, often guide disability-related research. How the medical and social models of disability developed and tenets of each are discussed and reviewed elsewhere (e.g., Berghs et al., 2016; Haegele and Hodge, 2016; Gin et al., 2020). Briefly, the medical model understands disability to be an individual deficit in need of a cure. The social model—which is heterogenous in that it is comprised of pockets of subtheories (e.g., Pfeiffer, 2002a, 2002b)—broadly understands the hardship associated with disability to arise from structural and societal barriers placed on people with disabilities. The social model and scholarship stemming from the model sees disability/ability as socially constructed. For more discussion of the social construction of ability, we refer readers to familiarize themselves with geographies of exclusion (Beneke et al., 2022), smartness as property (Leonardo and Broderick, 2011) as well as a general history of disability as justification for exclusion (Baynton, 2013). In the following sections, we highlight the evolution of theory within Critical Disability Studies in preparation for discussing how we can use these ideas to foster equity for disabled people in biology education research. We focus on theories related to DisCrit as we use DisCrit framework as a model for the methods we present in the article.
Overview of Theoretical Developments in Critical Disability Studies
As scholarship about disability developed across disciplines, Disability Studies2 emerged as a field and advanced the social model (see Figure 1 and accompanying Image Description). The social model and its scholarship were additionally critiqued as mostly benefiting white men with physical disabilities and failing to fully address other lived experiences, such as those of disabled women and disabled people of color (e.g., Bell, 2006; Reid and Knight, 2006; Meekosha and Shuttleworth, 2009). Furthermore, the social model of disability was criticized for oversimplifying the causes of hardship and oppression in the lives of disabled people. Because the social model focuses on understanding large-scale structural and political barriers affecting disabled people, the nuance in the lived experiences of disability can be overshadowed (e.g., Barnes and Mercer, 1996). From critiques and conversations about the limitations of the social model, more critically-oriented perspectives of disability emerged within Disability Studies. This body of scholarship has been referred to by different names, including the term we will use here “Critical Disability Studies” (e.g., Meekosha and Shuttleworth, 2009; Goodley, 2013; Vehmas and Watson, 2014).
FIGURE 1. Theoretical origins and approximate timeline of DisCrit’s emergence. The figure summarizes the foundational theoretical origins of DisCrit and includes an approximate timeline of when critically-informed, disability-specific theories emerged or gained prominence in the literature. Many of the ideas that would eventually be recognized as Disability Studies and Critical Disability Studies first appeared in scholarship before the 1980s (Vehmas and Watson, 2014; Smagorinsky et al., 2017). The various theories here are presented as stand-alone entities. However, these theories often intersect and draw from one another. Bolded blue outlines indicate foundational theories (squares) and key disability-specific theoretical developments (circles) in the origins of DisCrit. Description. Figure 1 is a modified timeline diagram. The intent of the figure is to show the foundational theories of Disability Studies, Critical Disability Studies, Disability Studies in Education, and DisCrit. The figure also includes an approximate timeline of when Disability Studies, Critical Disability Studies, Disability Studies in Education and DisCrit emerged. The timeline begins in the 1980s and ends in the 2010s. The figure shows that Disability Studies’ foundational theories are the Medical Model of Disability, Critical Theory, Vygotsky’s Cultural Historical Action Theory, and the Social Model of Disability. The foundational theories for DisCrit are Critical Race Theory, Gift Theory, Black Feminist Theory, and Feminist Theory. The figure also shows that Disability Studies is closely related to Critical Disability Studies. Disability Studies is shown to emerge roughly in the early 1980s, Critical Disability Studies to emerge in the late 1980s and early 1990s. From there, the figure shows Disability Studies in Education emerges in the early 2000s, which led to the emergence of DisCrit in the early 2010s.
Scholars employing Critical Disability Studies perspectives drew from foundational theories related to disability (i.e., the medical and social models), from Critical Theory, and Vygotsky’s iteration of Cultural Historical Activity Theory (Smagorinsky et al., 2017). The aim of much Critical Disability Studies scholarship is to recognize how the tacit norms of our society and specific situations, which are replete with power dynamics, shape the experiences of disabled people (Meekosha and Shuttleworth, 2009; Goodley, 2013; Vehmas and Watson, 2014). Although Critical Disability Studies identifies system-level and individual-level factors affecting disabled people, scholarship stemming from Critical Disability Studies was seen by some as failing to bring about meaningful change in the lives of disabled people, especially disabled people of color (e.g., Erevelles and Minear, 2010; Annamma et al., 2013; Vehmas and Watson, 2014), leading to the emergence of several distinct but related theories that inform DisCrit. Examples of these emergent theories include Crip Theory (e.g., McRuer, 2006; Kafer, 2013), Disability Studies in Education (e.g., Baglieri et al., 2011), and Disability Justice (e.g., Sins Invalid, 2017; Reinholz and Ridgway, 2021). Because DisCrit was formalized by education researchers, we consider the most salient of these emergent theories in the origin story of DisCrit to be Disability Studies in Education (Baglieri et al., 2011; Annamma et al., 2013).
Disability Studies in Education developed within a movement of critically-informed special education researchers. These scholars began to problematize the positivist paradigms and often deficit-focused perspectives of students dominating special education research at the time (e.g., Gallagher, 2004a; Baglieri et al., 2011). It was clear to special education researchers using a critical perspective that special education within western societies, such as the United States, is affected by systemic racism. Readers interested in learning more about the social construction of race are encouraged to consult existing references (e.g., Jones, 2000; Foster and Sharp, 2002; Smedley and Smedley, 2005; Saini, 2019). As noted by Annamma and colleagues (2013, p. 2) “a disproportionate number of nondominant racial, ethnic, and linguistic [students] continue to be referred, labeled, and placed in special education.” The persistent overrepresentation of students of color in special education programs (e.g., Thorius and Stephenson, 2012; Kulkarni, 2020) necessitated a more specific and critically-informed theory that attended to ableism and racism in educational contexts (Annamma et al., 2013). DisCrit founders did not consider existing theories at the time (i.e., Disability Studies in Education or Critical Race Theory) to offer sufficient room to deeply conceptualize the experiences of disabled and multiply marginalized people (Annamma et al., 2013). From their perspective, a new theory was needed and thus DisCrit emerged.
DisCrit in Practice
DisCrit is a theoretical framework that draws from several foundational fields and theories (Figure 1). These foundational theories include Disability Studies, Disability Studies in Education, Critical Race Theory, Gift Theory from Du Bois as well as Feminist and Black Feminist Theory (e.g., Annamma and Morrison, 2018; Hill Collins, 1986; Crenshaw, 1989; Ladson-Billings, 1998; Baglieri et al., 2011). The founders of DisCrit developed the framework to explicitly consider the intersectional experiences of disabled students of color (Annamma et al., 2013). Annnamma and colleagues (2013) formalized seven tenets of DisCrit with the aim of centering the experiences of disabled students of color as knowledge generators. These tenets call for researchers to reorient the ways in which they consider the experiences of students multiply marginalized in educational systems. Because DisCrit names concrete ideas—or tenets—for investigators to query and positions disabled people of color as knowledge generators, there is great promise in the use of DisCrit to advance equity, inclusion, access, and justice in biology education research (e.g., Kozleski et al., 2020; Segura-Totten et al., 2021; Saia et al., 2023; Yeh, 2023). The seven tenets as described by the founders of the theory are listed below:
DisCrit focuses on ways that the forces of racism and ableism circulate interdependently, often in neutralized and invisible ways, to uphold notions of normalcy.
DisCrit values multidimensional identities and troubles singular notions of identity, such as race, or disability, or class, or gender, or sexuality, and so on.
DisCrit emphasizes the social constructions of race and ability and yet recognizes the material and psychological impacts of being labeled as raced or disabled, which sets one outside of western cultural norms.
DisCrit privileges voices of marginalized populations, traditionally not acknowledged within research.
DisCrit considers legal and historical aspects of disability and race and how both have been used separately and together to deny the rights of some citizens.
DisCrit recognizes whiteness and ability as property and that gains for people labeled with disabilities have largely been made as the result of interest convergence of white, middle-class citizens.
DisCrit requires activism and supports all forms of resistance.
In the following section, we draw from these tenets to formulate methodological considerations for biology education researchers using DisCrit as a framework.
METHODS AND APPLICATIONS
We organized our Methods and Applications section to reflect distinct phases of the research process. However, because the research process is not linear and the phases can overlap, we offer an overview of each subsection below. Within each subsection, we offer Boxes that model the principles discussed within the section using a hypothetical study conducted by an imaginary researcher named Dr. Okazaki and a team of participant-researchers.
Designing a Study focuses on the types of research questions that align to DisCrit as well as how to meaningfully engage communities in the research process while attending to researcher’s own positionalities. Box 1 models a positionality statement written by us (the authors of the article) using guidelines from DisCrit scholars.
Collecting Data provides suggestions for defining disability in research studies and facilitating access for both participants and researchers. Box 2 addresses research question development. Box 3 provides strategies to define disability within a research study and potential wording to use in participant screening questions. Box 4 includes an Access and Equity map, along with an image description of the map. Providing detailed image descriptions can support readers’ access to visual information (Perkins School for the Blind, 2024).
Analyzing Data shares perspectives on the do’s and don’ts of intersectional analysis as deep or transformative intersectional analyses are a goal of the DisCrit framework. Box 5 shows an example reflection from Dr. Okazaki and their research team about the characteristics of a transformative intersectional analysis in the context of their study.
Disseminating Findings offers creative ideas for sharing research beyond the bounds of traditional academic publishing with a mind toward the accessibility of findings. Box 6 shares example dissemination ideas using the five Ws (Who, What, Where, When, and Why) to address accessibility of findings and diversity of target audiences.
We encourage readers to engage with these sections and examples in the order that makes most sense to them.
Designing a Study
Researchers should use a critical framework like DisCrit when they intend to delve into the nuanced and unique barriers experienced by individuals at the intersections of multiple marginalized identities (e.g., Grzanka, 2020). Researchers should be prepared to go beyond surface-level diversity considerations and explore the intricate ways in which various oppressions converge, shedding light on the complex challenges faced by individuals with intersecting marginalized identities (Annamma et al., 2018). Just because a research sample is comprised of participants from various races, ethnicities, genders, socioeconomic classes, etc., does not necessarily mean a critical framework, such as DisCrit, is needed or appropriate. If researchers do not intend to investigate intersections of oppressions as per Crenshaw (1989) or to unearth the form and functions of power in the lives of their study participants, naming a critical framework like DisCrit, may do more harm than good. For instance, a recent examination of disability-related studies in mathematics education found that a considerable amount of research portrayed disabled students as a “challenge” that needs resolution, with minimal attention given to understanding student sense-making in mathematics (Lambert and Tan, 2020). Learners without disabilities were most commonly studied through constructivist lenses, while learners with disabilities were most often studied using behavioral research methods, which tend to adopt a medicalized understanding of disability. In this case, past research propagated deficit views of disabled students that could foster instructors’ misconceptions about students, which limits equity, inclusion, access, and justice for disabled students. It is imperative researchers read about the frameworks they intend to use and seek out examples of research that have used those frameworks (e.g., Dolan, 2013) to avoid conducting research that could inadvertently harm communities.
Using DisCrit’s Tenets to Develop Research Questions and Study Aims.
DisCrit underscores the interdependence of ableism and racism, the social constructions of ability and race, and the historical aspects of ability and race in the denial of rights for disabled people of color (Annamma et al., 2013). DisCrit can be used to answer various research questions, addressing concepts such as education systems as dysfunctional landscapes for disabled students of color (e.g., Annamma and Morrison, 2018), overrepresentation of minority students in special education (e.g., Connor et al., 2019), and how race and ability shape teacher education (e.g., Schwitzman, 2019; Kulkarni et al., 2020). Example research questions applicable to biology education research contexts that align to each tenet of DisCrit are provided in Table 1 (alternative versions of Table 1 and 2 are available in Supplemental Materials). As becomes evident when considering the complexity of each of DisCrit’s tenets, fully addressing every tenet of DisCrit in a single study is likely not feasible. Based on examples from DisCrit scholars (e.g., Fornauf and Mascio, 2021; Torres, 2021; Yeh, 2023), biology education researchers may wish to address approximately three DisCrit tenets in a single study to give each tenet the full attention it deserves. Identifying which tenets are most applicable to a study as well as the precise research questions the study will address requires thorough consideration by the research team and consultation with the community the researcher intends to study. As researchers identify which tenets they will attend to in their study, they should strive to clearly call out these tenets as they communicate the findings of their research (e.g., Yeh, 2023).
| DisCrit tenet (DisCrit…) | Potential questions |
|---|---|
1. Focuses on ways that the forces of racism and ableism circulate interdependently, often in neutralized and invisible ways, to uphold notions of normalcy. |
|
2. Values multidimensional identities and troubles singular notions of identity such as race or disability or class or gender or sexuality, and so on. |
|
3. Emphasizes the social constructions of race and ability and yet recognizes the material and psychological impacts of being labeled as raced or disabled, which sets one outside of the western cultural norms. |
|
4. Privileges voices of marginalized populations, traditionally not acknowledged within research. |
|
5. Considers legal and historical aspects of disability and race and how both have been used separately and together to deny the rights of some citizens. |
|
6. Recognizes whiteness and ability as property and that gains for people labeled with disabilities have largely been made as the result of interest convergence of white, middle-class citizens. |
|
7. Requires activism and supports all forms of resistance. |
|
Engaging Communities in DisCrit Research.
DisCrit-informed researchers view community partners and participants as experts, and respect and value their expertise in the research process (Annamma et al., 2013). In alignment with this principle, which is reflected in Tenet 4, researchers using a DisCrit approach should aim to foster a reciprocal relationship to co-construct knowledge with participants and the communities they research. DisCrit calls upon education researchers to take accountability not only for their actions in affecting change but also for the methods employed in the process (Yeh, 2023). Researchers using DisCrit must question whether the community they study will genuinely benefit from the research they plan to conduct (Boveda and Annamma, 2023). Learning about methodologies used outside traditional biology education research approaches may help researchers generate research that advances equity, inclusion, access, and justice by meaningfully engaging people (students, instructors, etc.) who are multiply marginalized in biology to share the experiences derived from the meeting of their identities. Action research (e.g., Ellis-Robinson, 2021) and participatory action research (e.g., Bergold and Thomas, 2012), autoethnography (e.g., Ressa and Danforth, 2023), counternarratives (e.g., Mireles, 2022) and testimonios (e.g., Torres, 2021), critical race spatial analysis (Morrison et al., 2017) and life journey mapping (Morrison et al., 2017), as well as phenomenology (Annamma et al., 2024 ) are approaches and methods well-suited to DisCrit. It is also possible to use DisCrit to engage in quantitative research. Cruz and colleagues (2021) used DisCrit as a theoretical framework and QuantCrit as a methodological framework to study students’ sociodemographic labels and associations with enrollment in special education and instances of exclusionary discipline (i.e., school suspensions). In addition, Vaccaro and colleages (2015) offer resources for researchers seeking guidance on questions related to QuantCrit methods for disability-related questions.
Reflexive Positionality Statements.
In designing a research study using DisCrit, scholars should reflect on the intentions of their study, identify possible research questions that align to the interests of the community they intend to study, and take action to build reciprocal relationships with participants. Through this process, researchers should interrogate their own positionality and power in relation to the research they are planning. Positionality statements can help researchers be reflexive about their own biases. Positionality statements are also important for locating the researcher’s context within their study conditions and in relation to the aims of their study. Tenet 6 of DisCrit—recognizing whiteness and ability as property highlights that gains for people labeled with disabilities often result from interest convergence of white, middle-class citizens—implores researchers to reflect on the ways in which they are simultaneously privileged and oppressed. Simply providing a checklist of social identities can be interpreted by some scholars as merely “claiming authority” to address a research question based on one’s own identities (Boveda and Annamma, 2023, p. 312). Instead, personal evaluation of researcher positionality and power should go beyond a checklist of researchers’ own social identities. Researchers wishing to embody the DisCrit framework in their research should incorporate a deeper reflection that explores how their individual identities influence the entire research journey (Martin et al., 2022). Yet knowing how to go-about a deeper positionality evaluation can feel daunting for researchers new to this type of practice.
Fortunately, for biology education researchers wanting to learn more about writing deeper and more reflexive positionality statements, DisCrit scholars Boveda and Annamma (2023) provide a helpful and comprehensive resource. Boveda and Annamma (2023) highlight three major elements researchers should consider regarding positionality: the ontoepistemic, sociohistorical, and the sociocultural. Ontoepistemic refers to the ways in which researchers “know about the world and how we find knowledge within that world” (Boveda and Annamma, 2023, p. 311). Creswell and Poth (2016) offer an introduction to the philosophical assumptions, such as the ontoepistemic, that influence how scholars go about research. The sociohistorical element reflects “the interplay between biographical and social-historical junctures” (Boveda and Annamma, 2023, p. 311). The sociocultural attends to power dynamics across the research team and with participants, specifically asking researchers to reflect on their own salient identities, personal motivations, and approaches to the scholarship they generate (Johnson and Fonbeuna, 2023).
We, the authors, model how the positionality resource from Boveda and Annamma can be used to write our own positionality statement. In writing our positionality statement we followed these steps.
We first read all guiding questions provided by Boveda and Annamma (2023) to query the ontoepistemic, sociohistorical, and sociocultural elements of our positionalities.
We then independently responded to the questions we found applicable.
Our next step was to select a handful of the most relevant questions related to the writing of this Research Methods Essay. In Table 2, we highlight the questions from Boveda and Annamma (2023) that we used to examine our own positionality. We encourage readers to look at the questions in Table 2 and then consider how we used these questions to generate our positionality statement in Box 1.
| Element | Guiding question (GQ) |
|---|---|
| Ontoepistemic |
|
| Sociohistorical |
|
| Sociocultural |
|
Box 1. Example positionality statement from the authors informed by the questions listed in Table 2.
Ontoepistemic Positionality
The tenets of DisCrit highlight how notions of behavior, productivity, and intelligence are all mediated by perceptions of ability and race. We embrace this framework in our work understanding that intersectionality emphasizes multiple layers of social oppression and privilege simultaneously. In writing this article, we aim to critique some of the cultural norms and methodologies in our field that have failed to challenge some of these oppressions. In our Essay, we have prioritized a U.S. perspective as this is the context we are familiar and have conducted research in.
Sociohistorical Reflection
In conceptualizing this article, we read deeply on the foundational theories for critical work on disability. We also consulted DisCrit scholars. We considered current norms in discipline-based education research and biology education research. We then compared these norms to the tenets of DisCrit and other examples of what we consider to be critically-informed disability theories. We actively worked to outline assumptions of neutrality and objectivity that are commonplace in our field. We considered how assumptions of neutrality and objectivity have the potential to cause harm to disabled people of color when these assumptions are left unexamined or merely accepted as fact at face value. We propose using DisCrit to theorize on approaches we can take to challenge these assumptions.
Sociocultural Reflection
Together, our experiences of disability include receiving accommodations in academic spaces, distributing accommodations to other disabled students as instructors, working as disability service coordinators, being researched as students with disabilities, and researching students with disabilities. Together, we identify as disabled, deaf/hard of hearing, and as individuals with nonapparent disabilities. We identify as white-passing and white cisgender women, which are identities that offer us privileges in certain spaces. One author is a first-generation college student from a rural working-class background and both authors have experienced financial insecurity. We have seen firsthand the intersectional hurdles faced by multiply marginalized students with disabilities, such as economically-driven lack of access to diagnosis and accommodation. We share these identities not as a means of claiming authority as written by Boveda and Annamma (2023) as a matter of proximity, but to highlight the social identities that interact to shape our own experiences. We, the authors, represent unique experiences of disability that are transected by the additional facets of our identities. We acknowledge that our experiences are not and cannot be comprehensive of all aspects of disability. In other words, by saying that we are disabled people, we are not claiming inherent knowledge of the experiences of all other disabled people.
In light of our identities and as biology education researchers, we care deeply about the future of our field. By writing this article, we hope to contribute to the future of biology education research. Specifically, we aim to share our knowledge of disability-related theory and methodologies that can support access and inclusion for disabled people. We write to offer strategies for biology education researchers seeking to conduct investigations with and for disabled people using theories and methods that center the humanity of disabled people.
Insights about how researchers understand the ontoepistemic, sociohistorical, and sociocultural elements of their research and how they approach the research process are necessary in using DisCrit and other approaches that recognize the assumptions of objectivity in research. However, publishing positionality statements that achieve the level of depth requisite for DisCrit-informed research is not yet a commonplace practice in many discipline-based education research journals (Martin et al., 2022; Patrick et al., 2022). This raises the question: could there be opportunities to advocate for the incorporation of deeper positionality statements in the field’s publishing norms? Some journals such as the Journal for Woman and Minorities in Science and Engineering require deep positionality statements and others such as the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships recommend them and provide author guidelines for their incorporation.
Collecting Data
In taking on a DisCrit framework, biology education researchers are committed to centering and honoring disabled and multiply marginalized participants (Tenet 4). In the research process what honoring disabled people means is respecting them as experts of their lived experiences, being vulnerable about what we as researchers know and do not know about those experiences. The disabled experience is not a monolith and is mediated by a multitude of intersectional and environmental factors (e.g., Bone, 2017). Even two people with the same disability might have different access needs or presentations of self (e.g., Reinholz and Ridgway, 2021). Accounting for these differences in participant experiences and how participants may best express themselves requires researchers to reflexively plan and incorporate accessible and inclusive data collection methods.
Here we discuss two pertinent data collection topics: 1) defining disability and categorizing identity and 2) facilitating access. We explore examples of accessible and inclusive data collection practices, drawing inspiration from disciplines, such as K-12 education research, sociology, and gender studies. We also build upon existing accessibility and inclusion suggestions from the biology education literature (e.g., Cooper et al., 2020a; Gin et al., 2020) and frameworks such as Disability Justice (Reinholz and Ridgway, 2021), Universal Design for Instruction (Burgstahler, 2009), and UDL (CAST, 2018). Universal Design for Instruction and UDL are frameworks designed to promote access and inclusion. The frameworks are meant to be used proactively to intentionally plan for human variation that one expects when working with people; the use of Universal Design for Instruction and Learning can help limit the need for retroactive modifications and accommodations (Burgstahler, 2009; CAST, 2018). In addition, some of the approaches we present are synthesized from conversations with leading DisCrit scholars and reflections with disabled students about research methods.
In this section, we model data collection approaches in the context of a hypothetical biology education research study framed using DisCrit. The principal investigator of this study is called Dr. Okazaki. Boxes 2–6 detail Dr. Okazaki’s study and the methods they used to operationalize the tenets of DisCrit. We include these examples for readers to consider as they go about designing biology education research studies. The suggestions we offer here should be adapted based on the unique context and participants in a particular research study.
Box 2. A hypothetical biology education research study framed using DisCrit.
Dr. Okazaki has spent several months reading foundational DisCrit research and scholarship. They formed a weekly journal club with interested colleagues, which has helped them develop a deeper understanding of DisCrit as a theoretical framework.
Dr. Okazaki is now interested in studying how undergraduate biology classrooms have been historically shaped to give the most agency to students originally accepted in the academy. Dr. Okazaki has taken steps outlined in the Designing a Study section, and inspired by DisCrit Tenet 5, developed the following research questions:
Research Question 1: How can students with physical disabilities actively assert, or manifest, agency within undergraduate biology classrooms?
Research Question 2: To what extent does race influence the reasons behind manifestations of agency among students with physical disabilities?
Dr. Okazaki chooses to recruit a team of participant-researchers who identify as disabled students of color to help ground the investigation and co-construct data collection and analysis practices (Tenet 4). As Dr. Okazaki does not identify as disabled or as a person of color, this is a step they can take to ensure authenticity and respect for the community they study in the research process (O’Boyle, 2018). See Discussion for more details about building an equitable research team with participant-researchers.
Defining Disability and Categorizing Identity.
Tenet 2 and 3 of the DisCrit framework problematize overreliance on labels—that is, medical diagnoses—to understand individual experiences of disability. DisCrit scholars tend to see disability as a “political identity, socially constructed in tandem with race and class rather than as an objective medical condition” (Annamma et al., 2018, p. 48). The terms and categories researchers use to describe participants are influenced by the social and historical contexts of the researchers and participants. For example, different countries have different legal protections and support available to disabled people, which may influence how disability/ability is socially constructed within geographies. In addition, the setting of a study and who the participants are influence the categories and terms researchers use to describe participants in terms of disability, race, and ethnicity. For more discussion of terms and categories to describe race and ethnicity, see Burke (2024) and Flanagin and colleagues (2021).
Within higher education, receiving a medical diagnosis of a disability is required to access longer term institutional supports, such as academic accommodations (e.g., Eckes and Ochoa, 2005; Madaus, 2005). Many students who identify as having a disability do not seek out or use formal academic accommodations (Newman et al., 2021), and disabled students of color are more likely to be diagnosed, but less likely to be placed in more inclusive accommodation settings than their white peers (e.g., Aylward et al., 2021). Thus, DisCrit encourages researchers to categorize individual identity in a way that does not rely solely on predetermined labels or formalized access to accommodations. The biology education research community has started to adopt more flexible data collection procedures to categorize gender (e.g., Cooper et al., 2020a; Casper et al., 2022; Forrester et al., 2022). A similar approach can be used to collect data about disability. Researchers can structure recruitment materials in a more open-ended nature to give the power of labeling disability back to the participant. Adopting an open-ended approach to collecting information about disability may ultimately help the researcher to better understand the mindset of the people they are studying.
As researchers expand definitions of disability to encompass more than an objective medical diagnosis, it becomes necessary to explicitly name a definition of disability and expectations for how disability will be viewed by the research team (Grönvik, 2009; Rinaldi, 2013; Madaus et al., 2018, 2020). The research questions of a study and how researchers decide to define and bound disability will influence how the researchers choose to sample participants. For instance, it may be appropriate to focus on students who are registered with campus disability service centers (or not) depending on the study’s research questions and aims. Solely recruiting students with disabilities from disability service offices might erase diverse disabled experiences, which could limit the findings of a study, again depending on the nature of the study’s questions. Friedensen and Kimball (2017) present a conceptualization of the factors that influence disability identity in higher education that biology education researchers may find useful in developing a study’s definition and bounding of disability. As part of the research process, scholars using DisCrit should define disability early and often in conversations with their research team and participants. Sharing how the research team defines disability can help minimize the potential risk for harm by tokenizing or generalizing experiences. Box 3 shows how Dr. Okazaki went about defining disability and categorizing identity in their study.
Box 3. Strategies for defining disability and categorizing identity in a DisCrit-informed biology education research study.
Dr. Okazaki reads about how disability identity has been conceptualized in previous work. They learn that in some cases researchers might consider physical disabilities to include hearing and visual impairments, or they might be interested in only disabilities that impact mobility. Dr. Okazaki talks with their team of participant-researchers about how disability should be defined and bounded in the study they are planning. Together, the research team decides that “physical disabilities” will include hearing and visual impairments as well as disabilities that impact mobility. In writing up and presenting the findings of the study, the team will clearly define the ways in which they understand, define, and categorize disability.
Dr. Okazaki knows that DisCrit encourages researchers to recognize the multidimensional nature of a student’s identity and not to only use medical diagnoses to categorize disability. They designed the following recruitment questionnaire to give the power of labeling back to participants.
Thank you for reading about our study and your interest in participating. Please answer the following questions if you feel comfortable doing so to help us know more about you.
Do you identify as having a disability? (Yes/No)
Do you identify as disabled? (Yes/No)
Please describe the nature of your disability (Open-ended response option)
Which race do you most closely identify with? (Checklist of options where a participant can select multiple options as they see fit)
If the above options do not describe your race, please feel free to describe it here. (Open-ended response option)
Note that Questions 1 and 2 were designed to reflect that it is possible to be medically, legally, and perhaps even administratively recognized or labeled as having a disability (Question 1), which may or may not reflect if someone sees themselves as “disabled” (Question 2). Researchers interested in using a more specific definition of disability—such as a legal definition or a definition of disability already in use by a specific institution—could embed that definition in the questions they ask participants.
We note that asking participants whether they legally identify as having a disability may increase the risk associated with participating in a study. We encourage researchers to carefully consider if their research questions necessitate a potentially increased risk to participants.
Facilitating Access.
Researchers can use existing strategies and approaches to support access and inclusion during data collection. For example, Reinholz and Ridgway (2021) offer suggested language to ask people about access needs—or the types of supports someone needs in a particular context to fully participate and engage. In addition, principles of Universal Design for Instruction and UDL can be built into a study’s data collection and analysis procedures (Burgstahler, 2009; CAST, 2018; McPadden et al., 2023). Although data collection mechanisms can (and should) be created using principles of Universal Design and UDL frameworks what might be an access need by one person could inadvertently become a barrier for another (e.g., Burgstahler, 2009). Researchers should take steps to proactively address the access needs of participants at multiple times throughout the data collection process, which requires a careful balance of intentions, humility, and reflexivity.
Researchers may wish to generate what we term an “Access and Equity Map.” These maps encompass the various strategies a researcher intends to use before, during, and after data collection to foster access. In creating Access and Equity Maps, researchers are encouraged to presume competence in all people, which is a step towards addressing intersectional oppressions that arise at the nexus of disability, race, gender, and so on (Annamma et al., 2013). Research practices and processes can operate in a way that does not assume deficit where there is no evidence a deficit exists, or where supports have not been requested. Researchers should aim to leave space to encourage self-advocacy and broadly offer support, but to let disabled people tell researchers about their access needs rather than make assumptions.
Box 4 details an example map from Dr. Okazaki’s hypothetical interview study with references readers can consult for more information on how to implement a particular practice. Researchers may opt to incorporate Access and Equity maps in their research praxis to reflect their commitment to honoring the expertise of participants and to describe their maps in resulting research publications to showcase how their research has attempted to embody critical frameworks, such as DisCrit.
Box 4. Actions Dr. Okazaki and their research team plans to take before (i.e., when making initial contacts with potential participants and scheduling interviews), during, and after interviews to facilitate access for participants.
DESCRIPTION OF ACCESS AND EQUITY MAP. The figure below details four major stages of the data collection process (initial contacts with participants, scheduling interviews with participants, during interviews, and after interviews) and the actions the hypothetical researchers referenced in this study decided to take. Relevant references are included after each action. The actions the research team decided to take are listed in the structured bullet list below.
Initial Contacts
Invite access talk (Reinholz and Ridgway, 2021)
Reiterate confidentiality and purpose of the study to address stigma and anxiety (Rose, 2006; O’Shea and Meyer, 2016; Nance, 2017)
Detail in-person, remote, and walking tour interviews as options for participation (Kusenbach, 2003; Annamma, 2017; Bartlett et al., 2023)
Scheduling Interviews
Provide a list of supports and possible accommodations with space to write-in options (McFarland et al., 2024). Example language: “Are there any accommodations or adjustments our research team can offer to make the interview process more accessible for you?
”Release study materials and interview protocols ahead of time to participants (Burgstahler, 2020)
During Interviews
Have accessible, printed, or friendly versions of interview questions available (Burgstahler, 2020)
Implement the accommodations and adjustments requested by participants
After Interviews
Follow up with participants about their experience to reflect on access need practices (Reinholz and Ridgway, 2021)
Choose a method to engage in member checking to ensure research interpretations are reflective of participant experiences (Birt et al., 2016; Annamma and Morrison, 2018)
Before Data Collection.
Researchers can take steps prior to data collection to facilitate participant access, for example, when making initial contacts with potential participants and scheduling interviews. Stigma is racialized when it comes to disability (e.g., Aronson and Boveda, 2017). Researchers should design data collection processes that are transparent about participants’ confidentiality and make the purpose of the study clear so that participants have the information they need to make informed decisions about their engagement in the research (Rose, 2006). In addition, taking measures to address potential barriers, such as offering flexible interview times or providing alternative methods of communication, can contribute to a more inclusive and supportive experience for participants in which they can reduce anxiety about access needs and focus on sharing their lived experiences (e.g., Ashby, 2011; McPadden et al., 2023). Providing a list of options for accommodations when scheduling might help those unfamiliar with supports to understand their access needs (e.g., Pfeifer et al., 2020; McPadden et al., 2023). Leaving space to let disabled people to tell researchers what they need reduces the onus on them to remember to bring it up. Releasing study materials, such as interview protocols, ahead of time and having a copy available during an interview can address a wide range of access needs from processing disabilities to hearing loss (e.g., McPadden et al., 2023; Tools and Handouts – DeafTEC, 2024). It also reduces cognitive load for disabled participants, letting them focus on providing data rather than on their disability (e.g., Cawthon et al., 2012; Gin et al., 2020; Pfeifer et al., 2023).
During Data Collection.
Biology education research can incorporate UDL by diversifying modality in data collection (CAST, 2018; McPadden et al., 2023). Providing multiple representations and opportunities for engagement can increase inclusivity and diversify thought (e.g., McPadden et al., 2023; McFarland et al., 2024). For instance, Zoom and other recording technology have become great accessibility tools for disabled people, permitting a means for people with many different types of access needs to participate in data collection (e.g., Feig et al., 2019; Gin et al., 2021; Lindsay, 2022; McPadden et al., 2023). Researchers can also diversify modality by collecting data in multiple formats (CAST, 2018). Example formats include using surveys to collect qualitative written responses or using questions where participants can sort or draw. For many biology education researchers, the default instinct may be to collect data in small private rooms, and for some studies this may be the best option. But for other studies, especially studies that seek to address a heavily-contextualized research question, researchers should consider data collection sites away from a traditional interview room to support participant access. For example, some participants may find that giving a walking tour of a particular space helps them best explain their embodied experiences to researchers (e.g., Kusenbach, 2003; Bartlett et al., 2023).
After Data Collection.
After data are collected, researchers can use forms of member checking to honor participants’ expertise. Member checking is a process in which the findings of a study are presented to participants and is one tool researchers can use to ensure that their findings of the study—or the interpretations of participant data—reflect and incorporate the experiences of the participants (e.g., Tracy, 2010). Member checking can help ensure that researchers are not projecting their own preconceived narratives about participants’ experiences, which helps researchers avoid harmful narratives about participants (e.g., writing deficit narratives [Ávila Reyes et al., 2023] or savior stories [Straubhaar, 2015]). There are many possible strategies to use for member checking. Birt and colleagues (2016) provide examples of different types of member checking, walking through the epistemological stance, theoretical issues, methods, and ethical issues of each.
Analyzing Data
Tenet 1 of DisCrit represents a core feature of the DisCrit framework. Ableism and racism are two interlocking forms of oppression that impart distinct effects upon people embedded within our educational systems (Annamma et al., 2013). In taking up a DisCrit lens, researchers are called to engage in a nuanced analysis of their data that can illuminate “how [racism and ableism] interrelate and how they feel” to those embedded within our educational systems (Tan et al., 2022, p. 873). In pursuit of a nuanced understanding of these experiences, researchers should deeply consider how social forces acting upon individuals impart unique oppressions (e.g., Grzanka, 2020). Simply stating that belonging to multiple marginalized groups (such as being disabled and being a person of color) contributes to more oppression in our educational systems is not considered a characteristic of “transformative” scholarship (e.g., Dill and Kohlman, 2012; Annamma et al., 2018; Hernández-Saca et al., 2018; Tan et al., 2022). While pursuing transformative intersectionality, researchers should aim to move beyond an additive approach to understanding oppression and marginalization. That is, transformative intersectionality3 “seeks to analyze institutions and identities in relation to one another”, acknowledging that “phenomena are mutually constituted and interdependent” and that researchers “must understand one phenomenon in deference to understanding another” (Dill and Kohlman, 2012, p. 20). In comparison, insipid intersectionality “explores differences” without any “true analysis” (Dill and Kohlman, 2012, p. 20). Insipid intersectionality merely skims the surface, acknowledging that differences exist but overlooking “how [these] differences came to be” and how these differences can be cast in new light to become “axes of strength and fortification” (Dill and Kohlman, 2012, p. 20).
The findings of a recent DisCrit study revealed the nuances of the experiences of disabled Black and Brown undergraduates in higher education contexts. Mireles (2022), using a counternarrative approach, showed that racism and ableism can interact to produce unique oppressions depending on one’s identities. Black students reported difficulties accessing accommodations as they were perceived as lazy or too aggressive, whereas Asian and Pacific Islander students were assumed to be excellent in math and science, making it more challenging for them to disclose their disabilities and advocate for accommodations (Mireles, 2022). The study also highlighted the assets of Black and Brown disabled undergraduates. Participants spoke of generational strength from their families that helped them navigate their mental health. This study illustrates how DisCrit-informed research can identify complex sociocultural and sociopolitical forces shaping individuals’ experiences, damaging power dynamics, as well as offer opportunities for intergroup solidarity and world-building (e.g., Annamma et al., 2013, 2018; Hernández-Saca et al., 2018; Patrick et al., 2022; Tan et al., 2022). Insights gleaned from such analyses can inform policy and practice recommendations that could make meaningful changes in the lives of research participants.
For those new to intersectional analysis, a major goal of this type of analysis is to identify the “there-there” or the substance related to the study’s aims and research questions (Grzanka, 2020). Yet finding a clear definition of the there-there is elusive. Grzanka (2020) developed a table discussing what transformative intersectional analysis are and are not, which may be a resource to consult as biology education researchers go about identifying the there-there in their own investigations. We offer an example of how biology education researchers may wish to use the table from Grzanka (2020) to reflect on their own approaches to intersectional analyses in Box 5.
Box 5. Dr. Okazaki’s structured reflection about their intentions for a DisCrit-informed intersectional analysis of participant data.
Intersectionality is ….
Leaving space for participants to share their unique experiences of agency in biology classrooms
Highlighting asset-based findings rather than solely focusing on deficiencies (Celedón-Pattichis et al., 2018)
Identifying patterns and unique challenges faced by students at the intersections of multiple identities (Annamma et al., 2018)
Member checking to compare assumptions and interpretations from the research team against participant feedback (Burke Reifman et al., 2022)
Facilitating discussions among the research team about identities shared and not shared with our participants as we analyze data
Defining our ideas of agency compared with participants as part of analysis
Intersectionality is not …
Prescribing categories of experience for participants to choose from
Coding only for barriers and reasons that students are not the same as others
Capturing experiences along singular axes of identity without considering environmental and personal contexts
Assuming that researcher interpretations are representative of lived experience not shared by those researchers (Goethals et al., 2015)
Imposing a dominant idea of agency upon individuals as only agreed upon by the research team
Disseminating Findings
In terms of disseminating the findings of DisCrit informed research, we consider Tenet 7 of the framework to be, arguably, most salient. Annamma and colleagues (2018) state that activism can take on many forms, ranging from more traditional notions of activism (i.e., participating in political marches, protests, etc.) to intellectual activism. In light of DisCrit and its tenets, intellectual activism can be characterized by writing up and presenting research findings in a way that clearly centers disabled people of color as knowledge producers, resists deficit-informed narratives of disabled people of color, and pushes toward a more complex understanding of identity with an eye to how a single person can be simultaneously “disabled and enabled” by the norms and accepted ways-of-being within a particular context (Annamma et al., 2018, p. 62).
Biology education researchers are positioned to engage in intellectual activism as they disseminate research findings. Patricia Hill Collins has written extensively on intellectual activism and strategies scholars can use to engage in intellectual activism (e.g., Hill Collins, 2013a, 2013b). She describes “speaking truth to power” as one strategy of intellectual activism. The goal in speaking truth to power is to present ideas that may fall outside disciplinary norms and the status quo in a way that can be deemed credible by academic audiences. Scholars such as, Laing and colleagues (2022), Contu (2020), and Bancroft (2022) explicate how researchers in the social sciences and education can embody intellectual activism in their work. In addition, Salazar and Rios (2016) and Patrick and colleagues (2022) offer recommendations critically-informed scholars may wish to consult as they seek to develop their own writing and rhetorical strategies as they pursue intellectual activism.
As researchers disseminate findings from DisCrit-informed studies, they must grapple with how scholarship about the experiences of disabled people can directly reach disabled populations. Piepzna-Samarasinha (2018) asserts that those most impacted by inaccessibility in our society are the ones reacting as a matter of survival and are, therefore, on the frontlines of transformative work. Biology education researchers can share in the responsibility of transformation by leveraging our privilege as researchers to seek out partnerships with activists who can guide researchers in identifying what information (or data) is needed and what venues or people this information (or research findings) needs to be shared with to enact change. We refer readers to examples of researcher activist partnerships in anthropology (e.g., Rasch and van Drunen, 2017), education policy (e.g., Ellis-Robinson, 2021), and urban education (e.g., Nygreen, 2006; Romero et al., 2008). As researchers consider possible partnerships questions about time surface. In what ways could institutions and departments provide support and recognition for the time-intensive nature of partnerships given the potentially transformative findings of the work that could be accomplished in and through these partnerships?
Critical paradigms, such as DisCrit, center the belief that research is conducted for “the emancipation of individuals and groups in an egalitarian society” (Cohen et al., 2007, p. 26). Yet many disabled students and practitioners who work with disabled students do not read academic journals (Leddy and Atchison, 2023). Thus, an important question for biology education researchers seeking to conduct and disseminate DisCrit-informed scholarship emerges: How can this research reach students and practitioners? Reaching audiences with vested interests in research about disability in biology contexts likely requires dissemination efforts to expand beyond typical academic journal articles. For example, writing blog posts as well as designing presentations or workshops specifically for disabled STEM students or faculty and staff working with disabled students are some strategies that may help study findings reach new audiences.
Scholars disseminating research about disabled people should consider following principles of UDL and Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) to the extent possible in their dissemination products. One UDL principle is to provide multiple means of representation for content (CAST, 2018). For example, here we have included Image Descriptions to accompany figures and figure legends to support access to visual content (Perkins School for the Blind, 2024). Researchers interested in learning more about WCAG can visit the website (w3.org). Where possible, researchers can also work with publishers to ensure the accessibility of their work and in the review process. Topics researchers may wish to advocate for with publishers include screen reader access, designating symbols instead of colors to track changes when editing files during the review process, and the use of dyslexia-friendly fonts.
As scholarship in biology education research grows and diversifies, questions about our traditional dissemination practices arise. Is there a need for alternative outlets or formats for sharing research findings that are more connected with communities and emancipatory practices? How can researchers navigate the tension between established research dissemination norms and the critical perspectives they aim to represent? Box 6 shares Dr. Okazaki’s approach to considering accessibility in dissemination of findings. It might be helpful for researchers to break down the dimensions of dissemination into the five Ws (Who, What, Where, When, and Why?) in order to more holistically approach access. As seen in Box 6, Dr. Okazaki plans to address not only the accessibility of venues in which to share findings but also the accessibility of what is shared within those venues.
Box 6. Dr. Okazaki’s five Ws (Who, What, Where, When, and Why) approach to diversifying dissemination of their research findings.
Whois reading our work?
Goal: ensure that findings are shared beyond only academic audiences
Strategies:
Publish in research centered journals as well as in practitioner journals
Share abbreviated reports with administration or department heads
Share with student listservs to increase advocacy
Whatformats are we presenting our findings in?
Goal: present findings in accessible forms in terms of both written and oral communications and in both expert and lay formats
Strategies:
Clearly communicate goals and key ideas at the start of any presentation.
Use tools such as W3C to check for web accessibility
Inquire with journals about accessible formatting for screen readers
Use captioning and accessible fonts for presentations
Whereis our work being presented?
Goal: disseminate findings beyond traditional research talks to fellow biology education researchers
Strategy:
Work with community partners to identify alternative venues such as professional development sessions for practitioners, student organizations, or advocacy groups
Whenare we sharing our findings?
Goal: identify stages of the research process to share the knowledge we generate (not just at the end of the project) in the aim of effecting change for impacted populations in a timely manner
Strategies:
Discuss with research team when opportunities may arise for advocacy in our work
Empower community leaders in decision-making about sharing progress and findings
Whydo we want people to know about this work?
Goal: communicate the findings of our work in a way that centers advocacy and anti-deficit perspectives of participants as well as helping to bring about change for students
Strategies:
Amplify the voices of our participants and highlight the ways exclusion occurs
Explicitly share strategies from our findings for increasing student agencies in biology classrooms
DISCUSSION
In our Research Methods Essay, we leveraged DisCrit as a model and provided practical approaches and methodological considerations for the design of biology education research studies. Our recommendations are not intended to be a comprehensive checklist of all aspects researchers should consider when using a DisCrit framework. Instead, our aim was to guide biology education researchers in approaches they can take to conceptualize and execute theoretically-aligned research that serves diverse disabled populations. In this pursuit, we drew from additional theoretical and instructional frameworks to supplement the tenets of DisCrit. We did this with the goal of offering suggestions to researchers who wish to prioritize access, inclusion, and justice for disabled participants throughout the research process. We hope our suggestions will undergo further iteration by biology education researchers as our field gains more experience using DisCrit and related critical frameworks. In the sections below, we discuss three frequently asked questions (FAQs) in the evolving field of critical methodology. We relate these questions to the methods and applications we presented in our article.
FAQ1. How can I Build and Foster an Equitable Research Team?
In centering disability, for example when using a DisCrit framework, researchers may want to consider recruiting a team that embodies the investigation. For Dr. Okazaki’s study outlined in Box 2, this might look like recruiting participant-researchers who identify as disabled students of color as part of the research team. This approach and other participatory research methods (Vaughn and Jacquez, 2020), can help researchers pursue authenticity and respect for the community they study in the research process (O’Boyle, 2018). Vaughn and Jacquez (2020) outline multiple participatory research methods that investigators may pursue and that lend themselves well to centering disabled voices, such as Asset-Based Community Development (Mathie and Cunningham, 2003), Decolonizing Methodologies (Chilisa, 2019), and User-Centered Design Research (Sanders, 2002).
When engaging in participatory methods, researchers such as Dr. Okazaki may also consider social power dynamics. Questions of authority and power may limit the freedom that participant-researchers have in the research process. For example, biology education researchers should question whether their participants or researchers are students in their classes. Could grades, assessments, or recommendations for these students be compromised based on their involvement as participant-researchers in the study? Further consideration should be given to who is selected for these roles beyond their alignment with identity-based research questions and aims. Are those considerations being made along multiple dimensions of power? Those at the margins of academia often may not be able to take on the role of participant-researcher due to various constraints, including financial burdens related to disabilities (e.g., Friedensen and Kimball, 2017). Researchers should avoid creating situations where disabled students serve as “unpaid disability consultants.” We encourage biology education researchers to adequately compensate participant-researchers for their time and effort based on the essential expertise they bring to the investigation. In cases that financial compensation is not possible, balancing the amount of work each participant-researcher is responsible for with nonmonetary forms of compensation (i.e., course credit students can use toward their graduate requirements, etc.,) should be considered.
FAQ2. How do I Balance Providing Sufficient Detail to Enable a Deep Intersectional Analysis While Maintaining Participant Anonymity and Confidentiality?
As researchers engage in intersectional analyses (i.e., Box 5), questions about the interplay between an appropriate level of nuance in the findings while maintaining participants’ rights to confidentiality and anonymity may arise. Researchers should pay attention to how they report findings about individual participants’ racial and disability identities. Because a participant could be the only individual who identifies as a particular race or who has a particular type of disability at an institution or within a department, revealing too many details about these identities could inadvertently identify someone. When writing up findings related to individual race and disability identity, researchers should carefully consider the level of detail needed to provide sufficient context to understand a particular piece of data and the amount of information needed to address a study’s research question. In some cases, researchers may decide to intentionally obscure potentially revealing details about participants or to lightly edit what participants have reported in the interest of confidentiality and anonymity (e.g., Tolich, 2004; Guenther, 2009; Petrova et al., 2016).
We recommend that researchers engage in ongoing consent processes with participants to ensure they feel comfortable with the level of detail researchers decide to report in a paper or presentation (Orb et al., 2001). Participants have the right to choose their level of anonymity and, in some cases, may wish to use their full names instead of a pseudonym (Baez, 2002; Giordano et al., 2007; Guenther, 2009). Ultimately, we encourage researchers to negotiate confidentiality and anonymity with participants throughout the research process. Readers interested in learning more about continual informed consent are encouraged to consult recent discussions of ethics in qualitative research (e.g., Goodwin et al., 2020; Moriña, 2021). Likewise, we refer readers who wish to learn more about local ethics approval processes for the research methods we have described in this article to excellent discussions regarding the need for both “procedural ethics” and “ethics in practice” (see Orb et al., 2001; Guillemin and Gillam, 2004; Hammett et al., 2022).
FAQ3. What are Some of the Potential Barriers to the Uptake and Implementation of DisCrit in Biology Education Research?
There are several potential barriers in the adoption of DisCrit-aligned research approaches within and outside of biology education research. A full accounting of these barriers is beyond the scope of our current article. Instead, we highlight just two potential barriers here: productivity pressure and a predominating positivist paradigm. DisCrit urges researchers to take responsibility for both the actions undertaken to bring about change and the methods employed in affecting that change (Yeh, 2023). This type of work and collaboration involves self-education, the creation of solutions, and the empowerment of communities (Yeh, 2023). The approaches discussed in our Research Methods Essay—reading across fields, forming partnerships with communities and participants, and engaging in reflexivity—require time. Time is not a luxury often afforded academics with pressures of productivity (e.g., Brown and Leigh, 2018).
In addition, some of the methods and approaches that align with the DisCrit framework are potentially at odds with the positivist paradigm that predominates biology education research currently (Lo et al., 2019). A positivist paradigm tends to prescribe a rigid and inflexible notion of rigor in research, which can bias how the field of biology education research views DisCrit-informed scholarship. However, if researchers want to engage in scholarship that more fully supports equity, inclusion, access, and justice for multiply marginalized people the positivist paradigm should be challenged (Strunk and Locke, 2019; Grieshaber, 2020). Is there room to incorporate diverse methodological approaches in biology education research? How can assumptions and expectations about rigor and what constitutes valid knowledge be broadened while still retaining truth-value?
CONCLUSION
DisCrit scholars Boda and colleagues (2022, p. 366) encourage researchers to consider a future in which “research about race, colonized peoples, and disability was put into practice in contextually specific ways, adapting to the Dreams of people and their communities.” One of the strengths of biology education research lies is in its embeddedness within biology departments. This fact uniquely positions biology education researchers and discipline-based education researchers to engage in research that can bring about change that reflects the needs of our own communities and contexts. However, the change practices we pursue must remain cognizant of the systemic elements that uphold oppressions. As disability-related scholarship continues to expand within biology education, so too will approaches to theoretical framing. Embracing a broader range of scholarship that extends beyond the established norms within biology education research—such as research informed by DisCrit—may support a paradigm shift toward inclusivity. In taking on critical perspectives, such as DisCrit, researchers are called to think beyond solutions and strategies that are merely responsive to oppressive structures. We levy our own privilege and encourage readers to levy their own to engage in transformative research that may bring about a new possible future for biology education research.
FOOTNOTES
1We note that many individuals, especially within communities such as the autistic, Deaf, and neurodivergent communities, may not identify as disabled. Throughout our Research Methods Essay, we use both identity and person-first language to discuss disability and people to reflect that today both language forms are used.
2In our discussion of DisCrit’s history, we refer to Disability Studies as a field. We focus on specific theories that exist within Disability Studies, such as the social model of disability, Critical Disability Theory (which is also called Critical Disability Studies by some scholars), Disability Studies in Education, Crip Theory, Disability Justice, and DisCrit (e.g., Smagorinsky et al., 2017).
3Dill and Kohlman (2012) present a typology of intersectionality that uses the terms “strong” and “weak.” Here, we refer to “strong” intersectionality using “transformative,” a term from Grzanka (2020). We use the term “insipid” to refer to what Dill and Kohlman called “weak” intersectionality.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank Dr. Maura Borrego, Dr. Lisette Torres-Gerald, Dr. Cristine Donham, and Dr. Sharday Ewell for their helpful feedback on early versions of our manuscript. We are also grateful for the helpful comments of reviewers whose feedback strengthened our article.
