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.

• 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.

·      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.

“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)

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

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.

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.

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.

“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.

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.

“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.

“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).

“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).