Although many parents report needing advocates to receive special education services for their children with disabilities, the advocacy process is largely unexplored especially in relation to school and child outcomes. The purpose of this study was to explore the special education advocacy process by conducting interviews with nine parent–advocate dyads. Findings indicate that advocates and parents agreed on the advocacy process. Participants reported that schools often responded positively to the advocate; however, some schools were confrontational and surprised. Regardless of the school’s response, advocates and parents perceived that advocacy positively influenced child and family outcomes. Implications for research, practice, and policy are discussed.
ArkseyH. (1996). Collecting data through joint interviews. Social Research Update, 15, 1–8.
2.
BanachM.IudiceJ.ConwayL.CouseL. J. (2010). Family support and empowerment: Post autism diagnosis support group for parents. Social Work With Groups, 33, 69–83.
3.
BanduraA. (2007). Much ado over a faulty conception of perceived self-efficacy grounded in faulty experimentation. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 26, 641–658.
4.
BogdanR.BiklenS. K. (1998). Qualitative research for education. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
5.
BrantlingerE.JimenezR.KlingnerJ.PugachM.RichardsonV. (2005). Qualitative studies in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 195–207.
6.
BraunV.ClarkeV. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101.
7.
BrislinR. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1, 185–216.
8.
BurkeM. M. (2013). Improving parental involvement: Training special education advocates. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 23, 225–234.
9.
BurkeM. M.GoldmanS. E. (2017). Documenting the experiences of special education advocates. The Journal of Special Education, 51, 3–13.
10.
BurkeM. M.GoldmanS. E.HartM.HodappR. M. (2016). Evaluating the efficacy of a special education advocacy training program. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 13, 269–276.
11.
BurkeM. M.Meadan-KaplanskyH.PattonK. A.PearsonJ. N.CummingsK. P.LeeC. (2018). Advocacy for children with social-communication needs: Perspectives from parents and school professionals. The Journal of Special Education, 51, 191–200.
12.
CreswellJ. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
13.
ErlandsonD. A.HarrisE. L.SkipperB. L.AllenS. D. (1993). Doing naturalistic inquiry: A guide to methods. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
14.
GlaserB.StraussA. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York, NY: Aldine.
15.
GoldmanS. E.BurkeM. M.MasonC. Q.HodappR. M. (2017). Correlates of sustained volunteering: Advocacy for students with disabilities. Exceptionality, 25, 40–53.
16.
GutierrezL. M. (1990). Working with women of color: An empowerment perspective. Social Work, 35, 149–153.
17.
HainesS. J.FrancisG. L.MuellerT. G.ChiuC.BurkeM. M.KyzarK.. . . TurnbullA. P. (2017). Reconceptualizing family-professional partnership for inclusive schools: A call to action. Inclusion, 5, 234–247.
18.
JamisonJ. M.FourieE.SiperP. M.TrellesM. P.George-JonesJ.GriceB.. . . KolevzonA. (2017). Examining the efficacy of a family peer advocate model for Black and Hispanic caregivers of children with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 47, 1314–1322.
19.
JonesT. L.PrinzR. J. (2005). Potential roles of parental self-efficacy in parent and child adjustment: A review. Clinical Psychology Review, 25, 341–363.
20.
KalyanpurM.HarryB.SkrticT. (2000). Equity and advocacy expectations of culturally diverse families’ participation in special education. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 47, 119–136.
21.
LeiterV.KraussM. (2004). Claims, barriers, and satisfaction: Parents’ requests for additional special education services. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 15, 135–146.
22.
MandicC. G.RuddR.HehirT.Acevedo-GarciaD. (2012). Readability of special education procedural safeguards. The Journal of Special Education, 45, 195–203.
23.
MorrisS. (2001). Joint and individual interviewing in the context of cancer. Qualitative Health Research, 11, 553–567.
24.
MuellerT. G. (2009). Alternative dispute resolution: A new agenda for special education policy. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 20, 4–13.
25.
National Parent Technical Assistance Center. (2012). Parent centers helping families: Outcome data 2012-2013. Minneapolis, MN: PACER Center.
26.
PattonM. Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
27.
SauerJ. S.LalvaniP. (2017). From advocacy to activism: Families, communities, and collective change. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 14, 51–58.
28.
SturgesJ. E.HanrahanK. J. (2004). Comparing telephone and face-to-face qualitative interviewing: A research note. Qualitative Research, 4, 107–118.
TrainorA. A. (2010). Diverse approaches to parent advocacy during special education home—School interactions: Identification and use of cultural and social capital. Remedial and Special Education, 31, 34–47.
31.
WangM.MannanH.PostonD.TurnbullA. P.SummersJ. A. (2004). Parents’ perceptions of advocacy activities and their impact on family quality of life. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 29, 144–155.
32.
WolfensbergerW. (1977). A balanced multi-component advocacy/protection schema. Toronto, Ontario: Canadian Association for the Mentally Retarded.
33.
WrightA. C.TaylorS. (2014). Advocacy by parents of young children with special needs: Activities, processes, and perceived effectiveness. Journal of Social Service Research, 40, 591–605.
34.
ZaretskyL. (2004). Responding ethically to complex school-based issues in special education. International Studies in Educational Administration, 32(2), 63–77.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
