Historically, researchers focused on individuals with severe disabilities have utilized single-subject research methodologies to study the application of the behavioral theory to learning. In contrast, disability studies scholars have primarily used qualitative research methodologies to study quality of life or policy issues related to individuals with significant disabilities. Also, less emphasis has been placed on quantitative research using medium to large data sets, despite the impact this research can have on policy and practice. This article discusses possibilities for applying a disability studies theoretical framework to quantitative research in ways that can empower individuals with significant disabilities and introduces possibilities for broadening research by encouraging a dialogue among fields of inquiry.
AshbyC. (2010). The trouble with normal: The struggle for meaningful access for middle school students with developmental disability labels.Disability & Society,25, 345–358.
3.
BaglieriS., ValleJ. W., ConnorD. J., & GallagherD. J. (2010). Disability Studies in Education: The need for a plurality of perspectives on disability.Remedial and Special Education OnlineFirst. doi:10.1177/0741932510362200
4.
BarnesC. (2003). What a difference a decade makes: Reflections on doing “emancipatory” disability research.Disability & Society,18, 3–17.
5.
BickelR. (2007). Multilevel analysis for applied research: It's just regression!.New York, NY: Guilford Press.
6.
CarterE. W., AustinD. A., & TrainorA. A. (2011). Predictors of postschool employment outcomes for young adults with severe disabilities.Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 1–14. doi: 10.1177/1044207311414680
7.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
8.
CosierM. (2010). Exploring the relationship between inclusive education and achievement: New perspectives. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY.
9.
CowanR. S. (1972). Francis Galton's statistical ideas: The influence of eugenics.History of Science Society,63, 509–528.
10.
DanforthS. (2006). From epistemology to democracy: Pragmatism and the reorientation of disability research.Remedial and Special Education,27, 337–345.
11.
DavisL. (2010). Constructing normalcy. In DavisL. (Ed.), The disability studies reader (pp. 4–19). New York, NY: Routledge.
12.
EgboB. (2005). Emergent paradigm: Critical realism and transformative research in educational administration.McGill Journal of Education,40, 267–283.
13.
EisenhartM., & TowneL. (2003). Contestation and change in national policy on “scientifically based” educational research.Educational Researcher,32, 31–38.
14.
GabelS. (Ed.) (2005). Introduction: Disability Studies in Education. In GabelS. (Ed.), Disability Studies in Education: Readings in theory and method.New York, NY: Peter Lang.
15.
GabelS. (2006). Applying disability theory in educational policy: NIDRR's “new paradigm of disability” as a cautionary tale. In DanforthS., & GabelS. L. (Eds.), Vital questions facing Disability Studies in Education (pp. 179–200). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
16.
GallagherD. J. (2006). If not absolute objectivity, then what? A reply to Kauffman and Sasso.Exceptionality,14, 91–107.
17.
GoodleyD. (2011). Disability Studies: An interdisciplinary introduction.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
18.
GrueL., & HeibergA. (2006). Notes on the history of normality—Reflections on the work of Quetelet and Galton.Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research,18, 232–246.
19.
HerrnsteinR. J., & MurrayC. (1994). The bell curve: Intelligence and class structure in American life.New York, NY: The Free Press.
20.
HornerR. H., CarrE. G., HalleJ., McGeeG., OdomS., & WoleryM. (2005). The use of single subject research to identify evidence-based practices in special education.Exceptional Children,71, 165–179.
21.
HughesD. (1995). Significant differences: The construction of knowledge, objectivity, and dominance.Women's Studies International Forum,18, 395–406.
22.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. § 1401 et. seq. (2004). (Reauthorization of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act of 1990)
23.
KauffmanJ. M., & SassoG. M. (2006). Toward ending cultural and cognitive relativism in special education.Exceptionality,14, 65–90.
24.
KuhnT. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
25.
LatherP. (1986). Research as praxis.Harvard Educational Review,56, 257–278.
26.
LintonS. (1998). Claiming disability: Knowledge and identity.New York, NY: New York University Press.
27.
LukeD. A. (2004). Multilevel modeling.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
RaudenbushS., & ByrkA. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
31.
RenwickC. (2011). From political economy to sociology: Francis Galton and the social-scientific origins of eugenics.British Society for the History of Science, published online doi: 10.1017/S0007087410001524.
32.
RoseD. H., MeyerA., & HitchcockC. (Eds.) (2005). The universally designed classroom: Accessible curriculum and digital technologies.Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
33.
ShakespeareT. (1994). Cultural representation of disabled people: Dustbins for disavowel?Disability & Society,9, 283–300.
34.
ShakespeareT. (2006). Disability rights and wrongs.New York, NY: Routledge.
35.
ShogrenK. A., BovairdJ. A., PalmerS. B., & WehmeyerM. L. (2010). Locus of control orientations in students with intellectual, learning disabilities, and no disabilities: A latent growth curve analysis.Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities,35, 80–92.
36.
SleeterC. E. (1986). Learning disabilities: The social construction of a disability category. In SignmanS. B. (Ed.), Critical voices on special education (pp. 21–34). Albany, NY: State University Press.
TaylorS. J. (1988). Caught in the continuum: A critical analysis of the principle of the least restrictive environment.Journal of the Association for Persons With Severe Handicaps,13, 45–53.
39.
TaylorS. J. (2006). Before it had a name: Exploring the historical roots of Disability Studies in Education. In DanforthS., & GabelS. L. (Eds.), Vital questions facing Disability Studies in Education (pp. xiii–xxiii). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
40.
ValleJ. W., & ConnorD. J. (2010). Rethinking disability: A Disability Studies approach to inclusive practices.New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
41.
WatsonN. (2002). Well, I know this is going to sounds very strange to you, but I don't see myself as a disabled person: Identity and disability.Disability & Society,17, 509–529.
42.
WisemanA. W. (2010). The uses of evidence for educational policymaking: Global contexts and international trends.Review of Research in Education,34, 1–24.
