# data[].attributes.body
Constructivist Grounded Theory (CGT) “emphasizes creating methods that prioritize the meanings and actions of the participants” (Charmaz, 2017; as cited on p. 1989).

“Principles of CGT including: (a) centering our analysis on understanding a process, (b) thinking about preconceptions, (c) employing theoretical sampling, (d) engaging in constant comparative analysis, (e) using memos to prioritize abstraction, and (f) focusing on theory construction” (Charmaz, 2014, as cited on p. 1989).

Data analysis in CGT, “coding is the pivotal first analytic step that moves the researcher from description toward conceptualizing that description” (Wilke et al., p. 1992).

# data[].attributes.body
PIQDA, “which alternates between emic, or emergent, readings of the data and an etic use of existing models, explanations, and theories. Rather than grounding the meaning solely in the emergent data and coding for a huge range of events, activities, participants, or relationships, an iterative approach focuses on specific aspects of the data that extend theory or address practical problems, and encourages reflection upon the active interests, interests, current literature, granted priorities, and various theories the researcher brings to the data” (p. 224, Kindle).

“A key goal of PIQDA is to create use‐inspired, practical research that not only builds theory, but also provides guidance on social practice and action in a specific scene. These aspects of contextual knowledge and social commentary, in turn, are designed to trigger prudent, ethical, and valuable possibilities for action” (p. 225, Kindle).

“PIQDA uses an iterative rather than purely inductive approach. Iteration is a reflexive process in which researchers visit and revisit the data, connect empirical materials to emerging insights, and progressively refine their focus and understandings” (p. 226, Kindle).

# data[].attributes.body
Say: “Medical and legal approaches are deficit-based; they place onus on disabled people to disclose rather than requiring systematic changes (Price et al., 2017).” P. 1987

“That is, students’ disclosure decisions were not an indicator of level of identity development. Rather, students were actively assessing environmental safety and others’ acceptance prior to disclosing (Miller, 2015).” P. 1988

“Disclosure puts more labor time and energy—on the very people who have the least amount of time or energy. Disabled futures are vital, and we would like to imagine a space where disclosure decisions are no longer necessary.” P 2000

Mean: The work towards accommodating those with disabilities is often reactionary instead of a systemic acknowledgement of the varied means of access that is necessary for equity within society. We often accommodate only when we are informed of a situation instead of assuming that there are those in the room who may have disabilities that are not visibly apparent.

Matter: When managers and employers work towards creating inclusive environments that are accessible and equitable for all individuals, everyone benefits. I am reminded of UDL strategies in education which keep in mind those who need accommodations, but in the end, everyone benefits. I use text-to-speech apps that allow me to keep up in my doctoral program. While I don’t have a diagnosed disability that requires this, these sorts of apps have increased my own productivity and decreased my anxiety around trying to keep up with coursework. These sorts of tools help everyone.

# data[].attributes.body
Say: “Criteria for scholarly quality constitute one type of social and humanistic knowledge; therefore, criteria are not ‘discovered,’ but constructed. As Guba and Lincoln (2005) advise: ‘No matter how real, natural, or objective they may seem, criteria are social products created by human beings in the course of evolving a set of practices to which they (and we) subsequently agree to conform’ (p. 269).” p. 286

Mean: The way we view the world and interpret our experiences is most likely through a lens that has been socially constructed. While we may want to claim objectivity, the reality is that it is difficult to validate that claim without recognizing that we are biased already in how we want to validate that.

Matter: Researchers need to approach their research and the participants/co-researchers with humility. While we want to create some sense of credibility and significance, our understandings of the research is largely built on our paradigms, positionalities, and intersectionalities. We want to create/research a worthy topic with rich rigor in sincerity that has resonance using ethical research practices and that is coherent, but we must always remember that that these are socially constructed. This is why I align myself mostly to an interpretivist paradigm.

# data[].attributes.body
Overall, I appreciate the idea of taking preliminary findings back to the participants so they can weigh in on the preliminary findings to either add to them or challenge them.

# data[].attributes.body
I find myself thinking about the concept of disclosure as a form of labor and find myself relating it to the concept of coming out, which I also think is a form of labor and often involves a similar process of thinking about whether it is safe and beneficial to come out in some circumstances versus others.

# data[].attributes.body
The participants brought up microaggressions like being asked about software decisions or being invited somewhere that isn’t wheelchair accessible. In the former case, wouldn’t IT always ask about the needs of a user and in the latter is it possible that the colleagues don’t know what makes something accessible or inaccessible? Participants did not want to take on labor of education (understandably), but how much is simple ignorance?

“Disclosure also involves the emotional labor of managing others’ comfort and reactions to stigma (Goffman, 2009).”

“Research on the experiences of disabled professionals working in postsecondary education remains scarce (Kerschbaum et  al., 2017; Lindsay & Fuentes, 2022).”  -ID of area of need/this paper’s intended contribution

“Medical and legal approaches are deficit-based; they place onus on disabled people to disclose rather than requiring systematic changes (Price et  al., 2017).”

“Cripistemology “evoke[s] the sensory experience of disability, what it feels and looks like, as well as the body politics of disability, how it operates as a cultural location of stigma and defiance, marginalization and collective organizing””

“Cripistemological understandings of capacity view daily physical and emotional energy as variable and finite” -Does this not also apply to everyone?

“principles of CGT including: (a) centering our analysis on understanding a process, (b) thinking about preconceptions, (c) employing theoretical sampling, (d) engaging in constant comparative analysis, (e) using memos to prioritize abstraction, and (f) focusing on theory construction (Charmaz, 2014)”

“member check the transcript for accuracy” (But Tracey says not to use this term)

“initial process resulted in 122 unique codes about disability disclosures”

The figure legend for all figures had an additional note intended(?) to help visually impaired readers.

# data[].attributes.body
How is crystallization different from triangulation? They both seem to emphasize using multiple data points/sources. The gist I’m getting is that triangulation focuses on achieving something closer to reliability in the qual field, while crystallization looks more at seeing the same event through different lenses. Homogeneous vs heterogenous views of the same topic?

The criteria for what constitutes scholarly work is constructed by scholars and always subject to change.

8 tents: worthy topic, meaningful coherence, ethics, rich rigor, significant contribution, credibility, sincerity, and resonance

Reading about the critique of this big tent model makes me think of the scene in the Simpsons where Groundskeeper Willie mentions everyone the Scots have a problem with, including other Scots

“Self-reflexive researchers make notes about others’ reactions to them” - Something I never really thought about doing

I like the way Tuval-Mashiach explains transparency: “what I did, how I did it, and why I did it”

Member reflections is the preferred vocabulary vs member checks (which I wish I knew two weeks ago before I submitted the latter in an assignment). Reflections/checks may result in disagreement with researcher, which is okay!

Aesthetic merit - Good qualitative papers are as much stories as they are pieces of research. They can transport readers to a situation and help them live through it.

Heuristic significance is when your paper spurs others to further investigate. Probably a big deal in the science world.

# data[].attributes.body
p.1986 – The aspect of emotional labor in navigating disclosure cannot be understated for practitioners both for the student/disclosee and the practitioner.

p.1988 – “Disabled people who do not want to engage with human resources or who are able to self-navigate institutional environments are either seen as self-sabotaging (e.g. not taking advantage of available resources; Goldberg et al., 2005) or are presumed to be abled and their disability is erased.”

This quote really situates so much of the tension at work in navigating the various systems and processes involved in engaging support, resources, and accommodations.

p.1991 – “We intentionally cripped the interview by foregrounding access, choice, and multiple methods of communication. We provided interview questions in advance, so that the participants had time to process and prepare responses.”

This is a great example of disability justice work as a mode of praxis in education research. Even such a seemingly small aspect as providing the questions in advance can change the pathway of an entire experience and life.

p.1995 – The layering of disabilities as an impactive element on disclosure is not something that was immediately at the top of my mind—I will have to give stronger consideration to this aspect in my future engagement with students, faculty, and staff.

p.1999 – “Disability disclosure decisions were a form of labor.”

Again, just an important reminder and guiding logic.

p.2000 – Noting the need for more intersectional and deliberate sampling is particularly relevant and important both as a matter of practice and scholarship.

# data[].attributes.body
p.289 - The role of sincerity as a criteria for measuring quality in qualitative research shows how far the field has come from its positivist days.

p.290 – I am going to need to read the Small and Calarco (2022) article regarding qualitative literacy.

p.291 – The term “fidelity” will be useful as I refine my positionality statements.

p.294 – A strength of this text is its consistent and diverse use of figures and visualization tools in order to communicate its argument.

p.298 – The contrast of reflection vs check is a great distinguishment for my research particularly because of how privileged the knowledge and precarious the interactions can become.

p.301 – I anticipate that there will be an aesthetic aspect impacting my future writing on student organizers where I draw on my background experiences organizing.

# data[].attributes.body
Throughout the course, ensuring the rigor of qualitative research seems to be a priority for researchers forming and constructing new approaches to qualitative research. I think that is why ideas such as fidelity and triangulation are important to ensuring credibility. How does ensuring rigor alter your approach to data collection, documentation, and data analysis?

# data[].attributes.body
I walked away from this article with a new understanding of what it means to conduct research in a way that is accessible to individuals with physical and non-physical disabilities. For example, “Participants were invited to communicate in their preferred mode (e.g. phone, video, instant-messaging). This invitation was designed to ensure access and also to disrupt ableist notions that interviews must take place in a linguistic format privileged by academia. Seven participants requested interviews via Zoom.” (Wilke et al., 2024, p. 7)

How does the data collection process of this study and grounded theory change what research could look like?

# data[].attributes.body
Purpose: to demonstrate how qualitative researchers can integrate disabled ways of knowing throughout the Constructivist Grounded Theory research process.

“In general, grounded theory utilizes some form of initial coding and categorization of data (Bhattacharya,2017). Charmaz and Belgrave (2012) emphasized that “coding is the pivotal first analytic step that moves the researcher from description toward conceptualizing that description”
(p. 355). We followed coding strategies outlined by Charmaz and Belgrave (2012) and employed open coding and selective coding to examine our data. This initial process resulted in 122 unique
codes about disability disclosures (seeTable 2for coding example).” (pg. 1992)

·      Coding is central to grounded theory because it moves the researcher from simply describing data to developing conceptual understandings. It is the analytic bridge between raw data and theory-building.

·      Using open and selective coding allowed the researchers to systematically organize and interpret the data, ultimately generating 122 distinct codes that captured patterns in how disability disclosures were discussed.

“…we detailed our struggles to “build from specifics and move to general statements” (Charmaz, 2014, p. 232), because “theorizing is a practice,” (Charmaz, 2014, p. 233). And practice, means repetition, it means mistakes, and it means that the work is never truly good enough.” (pg. 2000)

# data[].attributes.body
Phronetic iterative approach asserts you can valuably collect guiding theories along the way as you engage in qualitative methods and that it is through practicing methods that you build preference on specific paradigms (ch. 3). A big part of it is data interpretation through coding:

·      Coding is the process of assigning a word or short phrase to a segment of data (such as a sentence, quote, observation) to capture its essential meaning.

·      Codes represent concepts, actions, beliefs, patterns, or cultural practices found in the data.

·      Different traditions use different terms (codes, categories, themes), but the purpose is the same: to make sense of the data by grouping and interpreting it.

·      Terms like code, theme, and category vary across qualitative traditions, so researchers must clearly define how they are using them.

·      Qualitative coding is interpretive and flexible, unlike content analysis, which focuses on counting predefined concepts.

·      Coding typically unfolds in two cycles:

o   Primary coding: Labeling segments of data to identify meaningful patterns.

o   Secondary coding: Drawing on theory, refining, grouping, and synthesizing codes into larger themes that support the study’s contribution.

# data[].attributes.body
Main Findings

Disabled DRPs articulate that their own decision to disclose or not disclose is shaped by multiple layers: e.g., fear of stigma, professional risk, desire to model authenticity, institutional expectations.

Disclosure can act as a strategy (or tool) to navigate institutional, interpersonal, and intrapersonal dynamics—i.e., not just a risk but a form of agency.

Institutional environments that are welcoming, inclusive, and recognize disabled staff as knowledgeable (not just “service providers”) foster more authentic disclosure and more equitable participation.

# data[].attributes.body
Main Idea:
Grounded Theory (GT) is a systematic, iterative, and comparative approach to qualitative research that aims to generate theory grounded in data rather than testing preexisting ideas.

Practical Tips from Tracy

Enter the field with curiosity, not preconceptions.

Code and analyze early — don’t wait until all data are collected.

Write memos frequently to track thinking and connections.

Use visual mapping to see relationships among categories.

Stay grounded in participants’ voices and language.