Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Due to the dominance of ableist narratives, there is a distinct lack of diversity of participants and geographies in education research with students with disabilities. To address this lack, we developed podcasting as a method for DisCrit-informed qualitative research in the form of a pilot project for the first author’s doctoral study on the experiences of acquired disability as intersected with policy, race, gender, sexuality, religion, and nationality. Using writing as method of inquiry, in this paper, we reflect on moments of questioning, tensions, challenges, and ethical ponderings that we encountered throughout the creation of the podcast project. These tensions include questions about what digging deep means in DisCrit research, the challenges of negotiating power, ethics, and care, questioning whose stories are worth telling and who gets to tell them and, finally, the epistemological provocations we rubbed against. Specifically, we argue that the creative, digital, and culturally specific properties of podcasting offer a counterstorying approach to ableism, by generating situated knowing about living with a disability. Podcasting, as a DisCrit-informed qualitative approach, may enable researchers’ abilities to develop rich, nuanced, and detailed understandings of experiences of disabilities, across geographies, identities, and contexts.

Keywords

podcasting DisCrit digital storytelling disability studies disability scholarship counterstorying

Introduction

Inclusive disabilities research, popularized in the early 2000s, shifted the scope of inquiry from research on— to research with— people with disabilities (Walmsley, 2006). Since then, there have been rising calls to democratize disability research further so that people with disabilities hold fundamental roles in producing knowledge (Nind, 2017). Contrary to these claims, it is evident that the voices of people with disabilities continue to be routinely and persistently ignored in research (O'Day & Killeen, 2002; Slee et al., 2019). The lack of engaged disability research is particularly relevant within higher education (Milner & Frawley, 2019).

To address this apparent lack of inclusion, researchers are exploring a variety of transformative qualitative methods in disability studies (Kenny et al., 2023; Niesz et al., 2008; Tierney & Clemens, 2011). Beyond collaborative knowledge development and voice amplification, participation in qualitative projects has been described as an empowerment mechanism to combat discourses of “normalcy” wherein disability is frequently equated with “abnormality” (Liasidou, 2008; Niesz et al., 2008). In this paper, we respond to the call for researchers to adopt methods undertaken “on behalf of and to empower research participants” (Berger & Lorenz, 2016, p. 6) by exploring DisCrit podcasting as a counterstorying approach.

Writing as a Method of Inquiry

For over a year, the first author conceptualized, designed, and produced a pilot project to evaluate DisCrit Podcasting as a method of counterstorying for her dissertation. During this time, we (the first and second author) met weekly to discuss the emerging tensions, questions, and ethical choices she (the first author) encountered. With each meeting, we made notes and memos about our conversations and shared experiences to engage in writing as a method of inquiry (Richardson, 2000). We were especially interested in learning together through writing “narratives that situate one’s own writing in other parts of one’s life such as disciplinary constraints, academic debates, departmental politics, social movements, community structures, research interests, familial ties, and personal history” (Richardson & St. Pierre, 2008, p. 965).

Following Richardson’s (2000) process, we sorted through our notes, marking key moments of continued questioning. We then spent time “writing up” (Richardson, 2000, p. 933) narratives to expand our thinking and understanding about those moments to develop a “seamless text” (Richardson, 2000, p. 942). Creating this seamless text engaged us in a process wherein we integrated literature, methods, and theory explorations in meaningful ways, weaving throughout, rather than in disjunctive, siphoned off sections. We found that the seamless text approach mirrored the podcasting process, wherein a podcaster weaves a storyline rather than narrating through the artificial breaks and subsections as seen in much of academic reporting.

The current paper is the result of our writing as inquiry process. To open this article, we first situate podcasting within the qualitative tradition. We then position our work within a disability studies and critical race theory (DisCrit) theoretical perspective (Annamma et al., 2013), we outline the contours of a DisCrit podcasting as a method of counterstorying praxis, and the ability to weave together theory and practice with the goal of advancing disability rights and representation. We follow this discussion, with a brief description of the first author’s pilot podcast project. Using this project as a springboard, we share moments of questioning, tensions, challenges, and ethical ponderings that we encountered in re/envisioning podcasts for academic, public-facing, critical disability research.

Merging Theory and Method: DisCrit Podcasting

Broadly, podcasting refers to digital audio files distributed over the internet (Howard-Sukhil et al., 2021) using syndication feeds for playback (Laing & Wootton, 2007). Although most traditional podcasts are limited to audio files, the content may include video and image materials (Rossell-Aguilar, 2007, as cited in Hew, 2009). Serial podcasts focus on unfurling the (often) messy happenings of a particular event, through which we learn the story of a place, space, and time. Therefore, podcasts allow an ethnographic portrait to emerge in research as the researcher-host reveals aspects of a culture, politics, ideology, history, relationship, roles and rules, and boundaries of belonging.

In education settings spanning K–12 and higher education, instructors have used podcasting as a pedagogical tool (O’Bryan & Hegelheimer, 2007; Woodward, 2022) primarily in the form of alternative or supplementary material (Bell et al., 2007; Hew, 2009). There is also a growing body of literature that embraces podcasting as either secondary data or as a process for disseminating research (Bekker & Clark, 2018). Within the social sciences, dissemination studies have explored the potential of podcasts to change the relationship between academia and society (Cox et al., 2023), the ability to increase the public impact of scholarship (Singer, 2019), and ways to end ivory tower isolation while contributing to ongoing public discourse (Williams, 2020). Further, policy scholars have begun exploring the effect of podcasting on creating policy change and creating public engagement via podcasts (Rogers & Herbert, 2020).

Qualitative Podcast Inquiry

While podcasting holds unique possibilities for public engagement with research, to date, only a handful of studies illustrate its use in qualitative inquiry as a data generation tool. The political possibilities and ethical implications these studies described were key to our design for the first author’s pilot project. Significantly, Edwards-Schuth (2023) critical podcasting methodology illustrated how engaging with participants and the public through podcasting can cultivate critical reflexivity, counter the monovocality of traditional research, produce counternarratives that disrupt dominant discourses, engage participants and researchers in a dialogic process, and engage in an innovative form of public pedagogy.

Rogers et al. (2020) discussion on the ethics of transforming an established entertainment centered podcast, to become a mechanism to generate and analyze data led us to consider how issues of power, privilege, and positionality come to the fore when analyzing soundbites and clips. As a result of these analyses, we questioned the tensions within podcasting—specifically, who has power and "who gets to speak through podcasting and who is listening" (p. 449). We have also been inspired by the work of scholars who explore podcasting as a method to center voices routinely and persistently edged out of white, male, ableist academic spaces (Smith, 2022). At the same time, we have leaned on scholarship that troubles podcasting to think ethically about our own, critiquing how, what, and whose voices are valued (Cook, 2020).

Drawing inspiration from these previous studies and our own goals, we developed a podcast pilot project to explore the potential of podcasting for the first author’s dissertation. Viewing podcasting as a potential mechanism to address concerns that people with disabilities are treated equitably in knowledge development, what Dei (2008) termed “epistemological equity” (p. 8), we explored podcasting through the lens of DisCrit and counterstorying.

DisCrit Theoretical Perspective

As an intersectional framework that combines insights from disability studies (Dis) and critical race theory (Crit), DisCrit is a theory that explores how ableism and racism intersect in reproducing discourses, relationships, institutions, and cultures, to continually disenfranchise people of color with disabilities (Annamma et al., 2013). The entangled histories of racism and ableism in the construction of abnormal and subordinated human subjects (Liasidou, 2013), has led DisCrit theorists in the pursuit of deconstructing notions of disability and race, to surface the supremacist ideologies that dominate disabling beliefs and practices (Vehmas & Watson, 2014). Researchers utilizing a DisCrit lens engage with their work by focusing on how racism and ableism operate interdependently to uphold notions of normalcy. Through this, scholars deconstruct the social construction of identities, which are historically, legally, and culturally reproduced to uphold axes of oppression and privilege.

These goals are met through scholarship that calls out and disrupts master narratives, the hegemonic discourses that constructs and dictate perceptions and experiences of reality. To counter these dominant narratives, DisCrit researchers build on the tenets of critical race theory, to produce counterstorying (Solórzano & Yosso, 2002), narratives that magnify and center the experiences and realities of people with disabilities. DisCrit counterstories promote consideration of how disability intersects with, is mediated by, and is a determinant of intersectional properties related to privilege and oppression. These narratives stand counter to master narratives that stereotype people with disabilities as either helpless victims or impaired heroes (Connor & Gabel, 2013). Most of all counterstories problematize singular and static notions of disability by illuminating the multidimensional, embodied, situated, and lived experiences of people with disability. DisCrit counterstorying centers the voices of those who are persistently silenced in meaning and sense-making in research (Annamma et al., 2018), moving beyond portrayals of oppression to include desire and joy (Tuck, 2009).

A Rationale for DisCrit Podcasting

As a form of counterstorying, DisCrit podcasting provides a platform for first-hand accounts of disabled people’s experiences and a means to preserve the oral histories of a global community. DisCrit podcasting presents an effective and robust method to engage participants intentionally in processes that embrace the tenets of critical race theory (Solórzano & Yosso, 2002), combating the traditional deficiency models of knowledge production. Employing DisCrit podcasting as a form of intellectual activism pushes against the methodological erasure of disability (Annamma et al., 2018) and disrupts the role of whiteness in research methods (Stapleton & James, 2020).

In this work, we aim to uphold the mantra “nothing about us without us” and suggest that DisCrit podcasting can create knowledge central to the knower rather than decontextualized, sterilized, and depoliticized knowledge. DisCrit Podcasting can disrupt ableist traditions of patriarchal, white observer-oriented storytelling (Annamma et al., 2018) by recording and displaying counternarratives “to strengthen traditions of social, political, and cultural survival and resistance” (Solórzano & Yosso, 2002, p. 32). The method can attend to and develop new understandings of disability through the co/creation of stories that go against the grain. This is also demonstrated in the intentional use of ‘decentering’ and ‘rezoning’ for the title of this paper. DisCrit podcasting can resist counternarratives being told in a way that is only in opposition to deficit discourses. Thus, decentering the majoritized discourses, and rezoning them the storytellers firsthand experience. Instead, through DisCrit podcasting, storytellers (e.g., participants and researchers) can tell stories that both resist master narratives and describe the perspectives, experiences, and knowings that exist outside them (Annamma et al., 2018).

Podcasting has proven to be an effective means for broadening the scope of discourses beyond academic circles and engaging the public; thus, it can expand both the breadth and depth of co/created knowledge. We see this ability as responding to the DisCrit goals of public activism and reclaiming. As an emerging research method, it also responds to Lester and Nusbaum’s (2018) call for reclaiming disability in critical qualitative research by “working to understand the being of another individual, as well as the social/cultural construct of disability more broadly” (p. 5).

We also recognize researchers’ inherent power in creating knowledge of the Other, and thus we position ourselves in the current work. The first author is an international student in a public policy Ph.D. program concentrating on social justice and education. She identifies as a Black, cisgender, queer-questioning woman, who was born and raised in a religious-oriented, Christian-dominant, Afro-Caribbean society. As someone with an acquired disability, she engages in this work while navigating the U.S. education system from a persistently decentered positionality. Guided by these experiences, she focuses her research on critical disability studies and access to higher education to make space for herself in the center.

The second author is an assistant professor of qualitative inquiry and critical methodologist, who, as a member of the first author’s doctoral committee, worked closely with the first author throughout the development of the podcasting project. She is a white, hetero-monogamous, cisgender woman born with a congenital disorder. While this disorder is not recognized as a disability, it is disabling in many ways—financially, socially, mentally, physically, developmentally, and emotionally. Living with this disorder in an ableist world, intermingled with the multiple privileged social realities from which she benefits, creates a fraught dynamic between her desired disability advocacy and intrapersonal-internalized ableism. As co-authors, we lean on the scholarship of DisCrit to better understand and make sense of our place in theorizing, researching, and being as we push the boundaries of methods and methodologies. It is this collaborative sense-making that guided the first author’s DisCrit podcast design.

The Podcast Project: Methodological Tensions

To open our discussion of our podcasting project, we first foreground our problem of interest: education policy for students with disabilities, before introducing the pilot podcasting project and the subsequent tensions that emerged during its development. As an international doctoral student, with an acquired disability who studies disability policy and access to higher education, the first author has leaned on the work of critical disability studies scholars characterize educational policy as “an amalgam of discursive voices” that significantly legitimizes how education for students with disabilities is envisioned and realized (Liasidou, 2008, p. 896). However, students with disabilities are routinely excluded from the processes and consultations contributing to educational policy and practice (Beauchamp-Pryor, 2010). This erasure is especially true for educational research that neglects the impact of disability in discussions of diversity and inclusion (Wolbring & Lillywhite, 2021). Furthermore, research on the international student experience tends to pathologize those experiences, failing to account for how international students thrive and contribute to the adopted educational system while failing to develop actionable policies and practices to assist students grappling with new learning environments (Deuchar, 2022; Supple & Abgenyega, 2011). Finally, there is a clear need for researchers to innovate their practices to include strengths-based, critically oriented, and transformative methods to address the ways that methods have created majoritarian discourses that devalue and endanger students of color (Harry & Klingner, 2022; Lopez & Jean-Marie, 2021). The absence of these voices within education research and policy has led to ineffective solutions that fall short of producing transformative change and accessible learning environments. Consequently, educators and policymakers risk neglecting or pathologizing the complex social, cultural, and institutional barriers that persist in higher education for international students of color with disabilities.

The RSZNING podcast was initially designed as a reflective space for the first author to respond to this erasure and explore her disability journey over the past decade across two distinctly different cultural contexts—namely, the Bahamas and the United States. As someone caught between these two worlds while being in higher education and studying education and disability policies, there was a desire to draw on both her homegrown knowledge and formal training to advance disability rights within education. Her goal was to invite listeners into a conversation with her as an aspiring disabled scholar-activist exploring defining life moments of experience, music, mentorship, and academic life. Informed by life before and after the chair, the first author sought to bridge the gap between the academy and the streets in these conversations.

In discussion with the second author, the podcast began to take on an autoethnographic design, later transformed to DisCrit podcasting, to bring in the voices of other students to better inform disability policy in education, especially for students of color with disabilities. RSZNING, as a qualitative project, importantly highlights the intersectionality of disability while spotlighting the often-overlooked phenomenon of acquired disabilities. The unique needs, resources, and strengths of people with acquired disabilities are understudied, especially in education. Whereas factors associated with students with disabilities transitioning into postsecondary schooling (Kelepouris, 2014; Naugle et al., 2010) and employment (Fielding, 2014; McCauley, 2020) have been explored, understudied are individuals who acquire a disability later in life and the impacts on their trajectories. We contend that this provides fertile ground for investigation. As we thought through this project, some of the questions we pondered were as follows: Does identity formation for people with disabilities influence how they view themselves and the future possibilities for their lives? How does that formation shape how people perceive themselves in traditional educational settings? More pointedly, how does identity formation contribute to reclaiming identities and re-orienting trajectories?

The project was designed to comprise a four-episode series featuring different guests telling stories about different aspects of living with and/or responding to disabilities in the education system in the Bahamas. Episode one was an introductory episode to acquaint the audience with the platform while traveling back in time to set the stage for what life was like when the first author acquired her disability. The first author felt it was essential for the listeners to understand the intricacy of the story as it unfolded. This episode featured a former high school teacher and best friend, two individuals with unique knowledge of the first author’s public and privately tumultuous life. Foregrounding the incident that resulted in an acquired disability was important to understand how friendship, connectedness, and the desire to be ''seen'' can be a lifeblood for disabled and non-disabled people alike. From an educator’s perspective, the episode also demonstrated the potential role of teachers as pseudo-parents/confidantes as well as leaders who, subjected to institutional policies, are sometimes left feeling unsure about how to advocate for students with disabilities.

Episode two was crafted to explore the impact of the host’s public-facing disability-related incident and its impact on the family from the perspectives of their mother and sister, who also have disabilities but do not self-identify as disabled. This conversation explored the lengths to which middle-class families go when they cannot afford resources, like health insurance, and the impact that these resources, or the lack thereof, have on the longevity of one’s ability to regain ''optimal'' health. Also explored was the question, How does a close friend or family member acquiring a visible physical disability change an individual’s relationship with and perspective on their own disabilities?

The third episode was tailored to explore the work of Bahamian music artists who depict working, living, and the social climate through the eyes of young Black men in the Bahamas. In doing so, the podcast gave a comprehensive look at life in the Bahamas, emphasizing music, the role of the Church in disabling discourse, and how stigma can virtually eradicate the existence of individuals and communities that deviate from the status quo.

Bringing the series full circle, the final episode features a special friend of the host—another person with an acquired disability whose life experiences intersect with and diverge from that of the first author. The interwoven narrative provided a space to metaphorically illustrate a coming into oneself or identity. In Bahamian society, young adults with disabilities are often portrayed either as deviants or as inspirations. This episode was intended to demystify these representations through a dialogue between the storytellers’ shared experiences in the high school and college they attended. It also explored their disparate views on and with the Church and their societal experiences as men and women with the same disability.

Digging Deep

That the pilot podcast project served as a reflective space for the first author, to explore her and others’ disability journeys and their intersections with higher education and education policy, required a willingness for her to engage in deep reflexivity. While reflexivity is a common approach in many qualitative traditions (Mao et al., 2016), podcasting pushes the idea of making public one’s own experiences, tensions, and perspectives by opening the door to a non-academic public. The demanding balancing act asks us to learn to define our life-defining moments, when and how they occur, and to what end. For the first author, as an individual consumed with navigating borders as an act of survivance, pausing to reflect was new and exhausting. As the first author designed and produced her podcast project, she simultaneously engaged in deep reflection by recording her thoughts as she drove to and from school, and journaling to dive deep into the introspective moments that helped her pull apart what her life-defining moments were, and when and how they happened.

We also discussed mechanisms for the eventual podcast interviews that could engage the participants in reflexive accounting. Adopting the position of reflexive interviewing (Pessoa et al., 2019), the researcher and participants held multiple conversations—a back-and-forth that allowed for stories to unfold. As this unfolding occurred, the first author returned to her reflexive engagements to think through and make sense of participants' perspectives. This self, other, and methodological reflexive work occurred before and between recordings. When the official interviews began, the researchers and participants held a rich bank of understandings from which to draw. In this way, we see the co-constructive nature of the podcasting interview come to life, wherein there is a pronounced collaborative effort to make meaning.

As the conversations continued to dig deeper into insider/outsider perspectives on living with an acquired disability, a unique opportunity arose to reconsider the research “problem” from multiple yet intersecting perspectives (Marshall, 2012). These perspectives illustrated how disability policy, response, and research are primarily dominated by the values of North America, and problematized for totalizing and universal claims regarding disability (Meekosha, 2008; Meekosha, 2011; Connell, 2011). We considered these claims and perspectives through several conversations about our risk of recreating the narratives and discourses that disable and distance, even as we intended to disrupt them. We questioned what it meant when theories, such as DisCrit, “travel” to the Bahamas, what it means to be a scholar with wheels firmly planted in two different lands, and how podcasting as an inclusive method contributes to “disability mainstreaming,” and the consequences thereof (Marshall, 2012, p. 55). This type of mainstreaming refers to the phenomenon wherein disability issues are brought to the fore in mainstream international development, yet declarations of interest in disability remain ambiguous at best (Marshall, 2012). Therefore, through this process, we were consistently reminded of Pillow’s (2003) provocation for reflexivity of discomfort that shifts focus from a “methodological exercise” (p. 187) to purposeful questioning of how differences are constructed to serve the needs of oppression and domination.

Negotiating Power, Ethics, and Care

Given the public-facing nature of the final product of a podcast project, we questioned whether the podcasting forum empowers participants or opens them up to potential vulnerability and scrutiny. In the beginning design stages, these questions were academic, meaning that we did not yet have the experience to know how participants would respond. Our desire to amplify and center voices that are persistently dehumanized and marginalized were challenged when two of the central participants we hoped to engage refused participation. The first refusal occurred when, after multiple discussions, the participant, a friend, pulled out of the project on the day of their scheduled interview. This rejection was prompted by the participant’s consideration of the public nature of the interview and how its dissemination would intervene in their contextual realities—specifically, what it would mean for their voice to narrate their story and put it on display for anyone to hear. Regarding the second refusal, the first author intended to interview a previous teacher with whom she had a close relationship and who was central in her experience of acquired disability. Attempts to connect on this project were met with silence. These outright and passive rejections made us reconsider how potential participants might fear the dynamic of having interviews recorded and played in a public-facing arena. We questioned what it means to be the storyteller of others, especially those who are persistently othered. The murky question of ethics in public scholarship led us to consider how best to handle the complicated nature of speaking out publicly and the potential backlash one might experience.

In confronting the friend’s and former teacher’s refusals, we, the authors, discussed how the participants stories were enmeshed with her (first author) own. The first author questioned if, in some way, those stories were still hers to tell, leading her to question, “should I still tell the story?” The first author decided that she would record elements of that time in their lives. She spoke with her friend, assuring them that she would leave out the aspects deemed personal, and the friend agreed. However, as time went on, the first author was confronted with the concerns of representation, writing the following:

There was so much nuance entrenched in it—could I tell this shared story and do justice to it with only my perspective? We lived in a small town and there were going to undoubtedly be folx that knew who I was talking about, whether I revealed their identity or not; would/could my sole perspective be disparaging their character? This is just a glimpse of the questions that rattled my brain... Ultimately, I decided against recording the episode.

We discussed issues concerning the politics of representation and how they intersect with the goal to amplify voices and the need for participant self-determination and autonomy. These conversations also led us to consider those participants who opted out by not responding to requests to be interviewed, especially when considering the complicated nature of speaking out about social injustices in a culture that does not center rights-based discourses. Reich (2021) described the ethics of care in qualitative research as engaged, not to get closer to the phenomenon of study but as a “methodological obligation to critically examine how and why that closeness matters” (p. 576). For participants with disabilities and participants in solidarity, it is essential that we focus not only on inclusion but also on the reasoning behind self-exclusion. Ultimately, that ethic of care was foregrounded as we discussed how to create a podcast that could gather empirical data about the experiences of people who are marginalized, without enforcing marginalization through coopting and objectifying those experiences (Compton et al., 2018).

Whose Stories Are Worth Telling and Who Gets to Tell Them?

The former ethical questioning led us to consider whose stories are worth telling and who gets to tell them, reflecting that society and academia claim to value multidimensional identities but often reduce people to what is deemed acceptable for a given audience. There is a barrier between these ideals and the reality that many in academia and among the public appear unwilling to accept people, especially people with disabilities, and their stories in organic and authentic ways. When stories are told by individuals with disabilities, who may not have the most “desirable” voice, cohesive semantic “ability,” or “preferred” aesthetics, they can be evaluated by moral judgment and social pity (Wong, 2022). These judgments can lead individuals routinely erased from scholarship to conceal themselves. At the same time, audiences lose an opportunity to gain a perspective they might not otherwise hear.

This consideration led us to consider how best to narrate a counterstory to reflect the potentiality and power of the podcast. For example, one participant acquired a disability when shot by the police. This participant became isolated due to the lack of infrastructure in the Bahamas and how Bahamians responded to their experience through condemnation of what had preceded police involvement. This story reminds us of Adichie’s (2009) Danger of the Single Story, especially her assertion that “power is the ability not just to tell the story of another person, but to make it the definitive story of that person” (para. 19). What we focus on in podcasting matters as much as the story being told. We could begin and end with the participants’ acquirement of their disability, focusing solely on their experience, which may lead to victim-blaming and moralizing.

However, within a podcast, we have the editorial ability to build a rich and nuanced counterstory that reflects the context of police violence, the challenges within the court systems, and the lack of policies geared toward protecting citizens. We can discuss life before acquiring a disability, the events that preceded it, the barriers faced in integrating the disability within one’s life, and then we can move beyond this to describe the experiences of survivance and joy. That is, we can tell what Achebe in an interview described as “a balance of stories… where every people will be able to contribute to a definition of themselves, where we are not victims of other people’s accounts” (Fetters, 2013, para. 8), to uphold the value of decentered voices through podcasting, potentially changing the interactions between scholarship, popular media, people, and the everyday.

Epistemological Provocations

In creating this podcast project, we found ourselves pushing against the epistemological beliefs normed within U.S. academic culture, both from the outside and within ourselves. The roots of positivism and objectivism within the Westernized philosophical positionings of inquiry have determined what valid and rigorous research and science “look like.” This objectivism creates the sense of being “in the world, not with the world” (Freire, 2005, p. 75, emphasis in the original), separating knower from known, researcher from researched. As critical scholar-activists, we are concerned with the way that the social sciences in general, and qualitative research in particular, is taught and practiced. Specifically, we push against the ways that the methods, methodologies, and theories we teach and are taught come from a white, ableist, globally northed worldview shrouded as neutral and evidenced rather than culturally biased (Collins, 2002; Grande, 2003). While there is a growing trend toward historically post-positivistic disciplines valuing critical theories (Garcia et al., 2018) and methodologies (Levitt et al., 2021), the overarching discourse remains that other methods, those canonized and traditionalized are intrinsically more valid for gathering evidence (Almeida, 2015).

Within the podcasting project, the first author explored how being positioned as always-already pushed to the margins as an international student of color with an acquired disability makes promoting epistemological equity a risky endeavor. Throughout this project, she wrestled with the pervasive question of whether doing this type of research would earn her the respect of her peers, committee, and the education policy community. Would it count as “science”? At the same time, the second author felt the need to balance her desire to work with a student who so uniquely and courageously wanted to push against the institutionalized discourses of academia and hear and understand the multiple risks that the student faced in creating scholarship that spoke to and through her. Leaning on the work of previous scholars who have dared to break the methodological molds, we read and discussed work that "explore[s] and challenge[s] the complex relationship between science and domination" to consider how podcasting could best be employed to represent participants' lives as "a mosaic of intellectual creativity and a praxis of resistance" (Evans-Winters, 2019, p. 19).

Intersecting these academic-epistemological provocations, along with the desire to radicalize disability research, was the sometimes overwhelming need for technical abilities in creating a podcast. While a podcast is a unique method of storytelling, the problem of technical expertise reproduces similar provocations seen within arts-based research (ABR). A fundamental tension within ABR is grounded in the need to create “outcomes that involve the shaping of aesthetic form” that “require skilled balance in” craft (Chilton & Leavy, 2020, p. 621). This argument suggests that for researchers to create evocative knowledge, they must also gain experience in the art form or work with research team members who have this experience (Lafrenière & Cox, 2012). On the one hand, we question whether these requirements for arts-based validity recreate the onto-epistemological “objectivism” of Westernized science, in that the art-based skills needed are validated as the correct way to produce an aesthetic. As Finley (2003) queried, such artistic and technical abilities might result from the social privilege of having the time, resources, and access to specialized training. The need for a perfected craft takes the power of participatory and engaged artmaking out of the participants’ hands, privileging the researcher’s “hegemonic control of the beautiful in research” (Finley, 2003, p. 292).

On the other hand, as the first author reflected, “I abide by the idea that 'I don’t want to produce what I wouldn’t consume,’ which, while sounding admirable, has admittedly kept me from producing much of anything.” The struggle for quality versus the skills needed to be a podcast-researcher induced feelings of insecurity for the authors that sometimes led both to almost give up. However, just as the researcher learns and hones skills, the first author engaged in an internship with a media company, began working on a podcast for academics with disabilities, and networked and collaborated with experienced podcasters. Her goal was to learn the art form through multiple perspectives and in such a way that while we designed the project, we could create various methods for participants to engage where the need for their technical know-how was limited to recording themselves.

Discussion

Podcasting has tremendous potential as an emancipatory tool for doing research in collaboration with persons with disabilities. However, it is not without its challenges. Perhaps most apparent is the learning curve researchers unfamiliar with podcast creation will face. These challenges include learning to record effectively and edit for content and sound quality. Furthermore, podcasting requires resources, some of which can be obtained through universities and libraries, and others that will require a personal investment in equipment. A full discussion of the methods of podcasting is not warranted in this exploratory paper; instead, we focus on the less obvious challenges. These challenges were ones that we confronted in creating the RSZNING project, and that we continue to consider, and they intervene at the fulcrum of ethics and the politics of representation, or as Bose and Gordon (2019) wrote, “the contested space between the subject, the representation of the subject and self-representation” (para. 3).

First, as Rice et al. (2022) described, digital artifacts and storytelling can push against bio-medicalized portrayals of dis/ability; however, they can also problematically create tensions. We must consider how what we publish and showcase—be it the participants’ voices, signing, words, texts, stories, and images—create portraits of individuals and their experiences as fixed. This fixing makes identity static, neglecting the fluidity of human life. For example, Rice et al. (2022) shared the experience of a participant in a project creating “a video that explored the complexities of the ableist gaze and spoke back to a history of looking relations where disabled people have been put on display (e.g., freak shows) or hidden away (e.g., institutions)” (p. 294). This participant shared that the video was widely viewed in social media spaces and screened in educational settings and at film festivals. Six years later, the participant recognized that the person they had put forth in the video no longer aligned with who they had become. As researchers hoping to use podcasting, we must have an extended conversation on informed consent and the limits of consent when we put ourselves on public display. It is possible to relate experiences, such as the one described by Rice et al. (2022), to deepen potential participants’ reflections on the concerns of longevity in media.

Further, there is a double-edged sword with which we must intentionally contend in producing and publishing the experiences of participants with disabilities. While “inspiration porn” is a controversial term to describe a complex phenomenon, it nonetheless speaks to how stories or thriving can be coopted and subjected to ablest gazes and goals (Grue, 2016). As Ayers and Reed (2022) described, “Inspiration porn reinforces to non-disabled people the central idea that disability is a tragedy to overcome, and a plight that non-disabled people are grateful to avoid” (p. 91). Ayers and Reed (2022) suggested that to confront the possibility of inspiration porn in popular media, we can contextualize stories through the lens of ableism and aid listeners in understanding the complexity of ableism within ourselves. The authors also described how one of the best ways to disrupt inspiration porn is to move beyond “repetitious re-workings of the same inspirational story... told over and over again” (Ayers & Reed, 2022, p. 99). In this way, we see the challenge and possibility of podcasting to do just this: to create, tell, and illuminate the nuanced and enriched stories of disability experience contextualized within the landscape in which we live today.

Finally, a significant affordance of podcasting is that it provides a critically reflexive platform for researchers—and, in many ways, participants—to think about and share their positionality, interrogating their beliefs and perspectives about disability and society. In the above, we discussed the possibility of engaging in a reflexivity of discomfort. However, problematically, this assumes that people exist in a space of comfort (Gachago & Sykes, 2017). We must be aware of our assumptions about the role and limits of critical reflexivity, even as we engage in our reflexive journeys. Doing this critically reflexive work is a core element of DisCrit methodologies, and both insider and outsider researchers must question why they want to do critical, advocacy-oriented scholarship. Not only do we engage with our own beliefs, values, and goals, but we must also consider the power that undergirds research and the ways that some methods privilege others, even those methods that we want to use to advance justice (Rogers & Herbert, 2020). That is, we can consider how our podcast projects might reproduce the same power structures to maintain the dominant discourses of people with disabilities as outside the “norm.”

Limitations of Writing as Inquiry

Our discussion of DisCrit podcasting was engaged through Richardson’s (2000) writing as a method of inquiry. Like podcasting, this method provides researchers with a reflexive space to explore, problematize, and complicate their relationships and understandings of the phenomena of interest. For this article, we found writing as inquiry to be a generative space that challenged us in how we think about and do research and think about and be in relationship with each other. There are challenges in doing this work related to the expanse unfolding that can occur in writing. We sometimes found ourselves lost in our purpose and direction, folding in multiple literature and methodologies, leading to slippery and evasive writing. This is not a passive writing activity, but one that is active and engaged, that challenged us to reimagine what it is we thought we saw and sensed. However, in the spirit of Richardson’s (2000) words, we embraced this activity as one wherein “there is no such thing as ‘getting it right’ - only ‘getting it’ differently contoured and nuanced” (p. 930–931).

Conclusion: Podcasting and the DisCrit Promise

We remain positive in the face of these challenges, ultimately seeing podcasting as a method that can enliven DisCrit’s theoretical framework. Podcasting as a method for doing disability research can broaden the scope of participation, accessibility, and inclusion for researchers and participants. The legacy of the disability rights movement and the academic field of disability studies are lauded for raising awareness of disability as a social phenomenon (Jenks, 2017). At the same time, these very movements and disciplines have been criticized widely for centering white, male, cis-heteropatriarchal experiences, knowledge, and relationships (Kafai, 2021). Counterstorytelling, through podcasting, aids in filling gaps ignored in mainstream research while also working to disrupt the master narratives of disability bestowed by influential stakeholders. As Kafai (2021), a disabled queer author of color, stated, “Stories can uncover and give voice to those who are unseen, marginalized, and forgotten” (p. 77). In this way, podcasting enhances disability studies by addressing the epistemological equity of the field. A significant aim of critical disability studies, argued Vehmas and Watson (2014), is to “deconstruct ideas about disability and to explore how they have come to dominate our approaches to the subject and how the ideologies that surround disability have been constructed” (p. 3).

At the same time, we must question what stories are told, being careful to not only tell tales of oppression, and thereby normalizing the subject positions of oppressor/oppressed. With podcasting, individuals with multiple identities residing at precarious intersections of oppression can share rich, nuanced experiences of living with or acquiring disability without compromising their intersectional identities. Doing so contributes to a plurality of perspectives (Baglieri et al., 2011) on disability that challenges universalizing conceptualizations (Meekosha, 2011) and offers local and contextualized understandings of disability. Again, evoking the work of Kafai (2021), we believe podcasting can create a platform where “majoritarian stories, stories that are told from places of power and privilege are troubled, … where assumptions of what is 'normal’ are severed at their core” (2021, p. 81). Counterstories can also invite imagination and innovation, centering an ethic of love and care, moving beyond master discourses to forge an expansive path open to a pluralvocality of being and doing.

As researchers in the 21st century, we are equipped with digital tools to combat the legacy of whiteness and ableism by soliciting and disseminating research findings in a relatively cost-effective and time-saving manner. Podcasting, as one such avenue, creates an opportunity for embodied stories to be told first-hand and be shared conversationally with audiences both in and outside of academia. The immediacy of traditional interviews can limit participation due to the pacing and expectation for direct responses to questions (Trevisan, 2021). The podcast process structure allows the researcher to send out questions beforehand, providing time to pause and reflect on questions before answering. Similarly, several recording options can be used to meet a range of communication needs before the researchers bring together the audio clips to facilitate the storytelling. By prioritizing auditory speech over sign language, our society discounts the being and knowing of people who speak through it. Through video-podcasting, we can work with participants who use sign language, as Rice et al. (2022) wrote, to “speak and act back—though oftentimes in ways that the aural-centric world may not want to hear” (p. 293).

There are also concerns of physical access, such as light or sound sensitivity or mobility concerns, when persons with disabilities are asked to enter spaces not built for them. The need to physically appear in person for interviews is waning, and digital platforms provide an environment for researchers and participants to meet and interact in quasi-intimacy (Hoffman & Jerreat-Poole, 2022). However, it remains the case that in the United States, people with disabilities are less likely than those without to have access to or own accessible digital devices (Perrin & Atske, 2021). Therefore, it is essential to consider the platforms used to understand their affordances and constraints and how these may or may not limit participants. As Topping et al. (2021) suggested, we can create tailored instructions for the technology needed, practice sessions, and real-time support.

Engaging an accessibility lens in qualitative research will aid in developing new and innovative tools to better identify, illuminate, and amplify the unique needs, strengths, resiliencies, and resistances of persons with disabilities. That qualitative inquiry has limited the participation of participants with intersectional identities related to disability, race, and nationality makes it clear that the methodologies currently being used are not being implemented creatively enough to fully engage people with multifaceted identities. As qualitative inquiry is expanding into digital, arts-based, and participatory arenas, it should also be increasing accessibility and applicability for the communities we wish to study.

While at the outset, the podcast as a media enterprise might not seem like an obvious choice for disability research, we believe it holds promise to increase public awareness and advocacy for people with disabilities. The production of counterstories in disability research functions as an active form of resistance to the erasure of disability in inquiry through intellectual and cultural activism (Kafai, 2021; Wong, 2022). Regarding the stories shared by people with disabilities, Kafai (2021) wrote, “Sometimes the stories we tell about our bodyminds are the ones full of grit and sweat. They are painful stories, the I have never said this out loud, and the I have never been this vulnerable before stories. Because stories can uncover and give voice to those who are unseen, marginalized, and forgotten” (p. 77). These stories, the ones filled with courage and pain, are how we – the disabled – write ourselves into history while stacking claim to our existence. Given the multimodal nature of podcasting and the ability to combine different modes of communication (i.e., visual, aural, textual), it is an effective and appropriate mode of inquiry for all who participate in and consume disability studies research.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - Decentering and Rezoning: Podcasts as a DisCrit Method for Doing Disability Research

Supplemental Material for Decentering and Rezoning: Podcasts as a DisCrit Method for Doing Disability Research by Kadesha Treco, and Lorien S. Jordan in International Journal of Qualitative Methods

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Kadesha Treco

Lorien S. Jordan

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Adichie

C. N.

(2009). The danger of a single story [Transcript]. In TED Conferences. https://www.creatingculturalcompetencies.org/uploads/1/1/2/6/112618631/5_the_danger_of_a_single_story_transcript.pdf

Almeida

(2015). Race-based epistemologies: The role of race and dominance in knowledge production. Wagadu: A Journal of Transnational Women’s & Gender Studies, 13(1), 79–105.

Annamma

S. A.

Connor

Ferri

(2013). Dis/ability critical race studies (DisCrit): Theorizing at the intersections of race and dis/ability. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 16(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2012.730511

Annamma

S. A.

Ferri

B. A.

Connor

D. J.

(2018). Disability Critical Race Theory: Exploring the intersectional lineage, emergence, and potential futures of DisCrit in education. Review of Research in Education, 42(1), 46–71. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X18759041

Ayers

K. B.

Reed

K. A.

(2022). Inspiration porn and desperation porn: Disrupting the objectification of disability in media. In Bones

P. D. C.

Gullion

J. S.

Barber

(Eds.), Redefining disability (pp. 90–101). Brill.

Baglieri

Valle

J. W.

Connor

D. J.

Gallagher

D. J.

(2011). Disability studies in education: The need for a plurality of perspectives on disability. Remedial and Special Education, 32(4), 267–278. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932510362200

Beauchamp-Pryor

(2010). Improving disabled students’ learning: Experiences and outcomes [review of the book Improving disabled students’ learning: Experiences and outcomes. In Fuller

Georgeson

Healey

Hurst

Kelly

Riddell

Roberts

Weedon

(Eds.) Disability & Society, (25, pp. 868–870). https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2010.521657

Bekker

Clark

A. M.

(2018). Improving qualitative research findings presentations: Insights from genre theory. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 17(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406918786335

Bell

Cockburn

Wingkvist

Green

(2007). Podcasts as a supplement in tertiary education: An experiment with two Computer science courses. In MoLTA 2007: Conference on mobile learning Technologies and Applications (pp. 70–77). https://hdl.handle.net/10092/17651

10.

Berger

R. J.

Lorenz

L. S.

(2016). Disability and qualitative inquiry: Methods for rethinking an ableist world. Taylor & Francis.

11.

Bose

Gordon

(2019). The politics of representation. The Sociological Review Magazine. https://thesociologicalreview.org/collections/politics-of-representation/the-politics-of-representation/

12.

Chilton

Leavy

(2020). Arts-based research: Merging social research and the creative arts. In Leavy

(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 601–632). Oxford University Press.

13.

Collins

P. H.

(2002). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment. Routledge.

14.

Compton

D. L.

Meadow

Schilt

(Eds.), (2018). Other, please specify: Queer methods in sociology. University of California Press.

15.

Connell

(2011). Southern bodies and disability: Re-thinking concepts. Third World Quarterly, 32(8), 1369–1381.

16.

Connor

D. J.

Gabel

S. L.

(2013). “Cripping” the curriculum through academic activism: Working toward increasing global exchanges to reframe (dis) ability and education. Equity & Excellence in Education, 46(1), 100–118.

17.

Cook

I. M.

(2020). Critique of podcasting as an anthropological method. Ethnography, 0(0) 1–19. Advanced online https://doi.org/10.1177/1466138120967039

18.

Cox

Harrison

H. L.

Partelow

Curtis

Elser

S. R.

Hammond Wagner

Hobbins

Barnes

Campbell

Cappelatti

De Sousa

Fowler

Larson

Libertson

Lobo

Loring

Matsler

Merrie

Moody

(2023). How academic podcasting can change academia and its relationship with society: A conversation and guide. Frontiers in Communication, 8, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2023.1090112

19.

Dei

G. J. S.

(2008). Indigenous knowledge studies and the next generation: Pedagogical possibilities for anti-colonial education. The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 37(S1), 5–13. ga.

20.

Deuchar

(2022). The problem with international students'‘experiences’ and the promise of their practices: Reanimating research about international students in higher education. British Educational Research Journal, 48(3), 504–518. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3779

21.

Edwards-Schuth

B. D.

(2023). Radical praxis pedagogies: A critical podcast methodology (Publication No. 30250539) [doctoral dissertation. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.

22.

Evans-Winters

V. E.

(2019). Black feminism in qualitative inquiry: A mosaic for writing our daughter's body. Routledge.

23.

Fetters

(2013). Chinua Achebe’s legacy, in his own words. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2013/03/chinua-achebes-legacy-in-his-own-words/274297/

24.

Fielding

W. J.

(2014). The impact of college graduates on Bahamian society: With emphasis on graduates from the College of the Bahamas. The International Journal of Bahamian Studies, 20(2), 1–11.

25.

Finley

(2003). Arts-Based inquiry in QI: Seven years from crisis to guerrilla warfare. Qualitative Inquiry, 9(2), 281–296. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800402250965

26.

Freire

(2005). The pedagogy of the oppressed (30th edn.). Continuum.

27.

Gachago

Sykes

(2017). Navigating ethical boundaries when adopting digital storytelling in higher education. Digital storytelling in higher education: International perspectives. In Jamissen

Hardy

Nordkvelle

Pleasants

(Eds.), Digital storytelling in higher education (pp. 91–106). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-51058-3_7

28.

Garcia

N. M.

López

Vélez

V. N.

(2018). QuantCrit: Rectifying quantitative methods through critical race theory. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 21(2), 149–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2017.1377675

29.

Grande

(2003). Whitestream feminism and the colonialist project: A review of contemporary feminist pedagogy and praxis. Educational Theory, 53(3), 329–346. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-5446.2003.00329.x

30.

Grue

(2016). The problem with inspiration porn: A tentative definition and a provisional critique. Disability & Society, 31(6), 838–849. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2016.1205473

31.

Harry

Klingner

(2022). Why are so many students of color in special education? In Understanding race and disability in schools. Teachers College Press.

32.

Hew

(2009). Use of audio podcast in K-12 and higher education: A review of research topics and methodologies. Educational Technology Research & Development, 57(3), 333–357. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-008-9108-3

33.

Hoffman

Jerreat-Poole

(2022). Module 6: Audio/podcasting workshop. In Ignagni

(Ed.), Digital methods for disability studies. https://pressbooks.library.torontomu.ca/digitaldisabilitystudies/

34.

Howard-Sukhil

Wallace

Chakrabarti

(2021). Developing research through podcasts: Circulating spaces, a case study. Digital Humanities Quarterly, 15(3).

35.

Jenks

A. B.

(2017). Rights enabled or disabled? The UN CRPD and fixing meanings of disability in the global South. University of Delaware. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation].

36.

Kafai

(2021). Crip kinship: The disability justice and art activism of sins invalid. Arsenal Pulp Press.

37.

Kelepouris

(2014). Transitioning students with disabilities into higher education. Brigham Young University Education & Law Journal, 2014(1), 27–39.

38.

Kenny

Doyle

Horgan

(2023). Transformative inclusion: Differentiating qualitative research methods to support participation for individuals with complex communication or cognitive profiles. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 22, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069221146992

39.

Lafrenière

Cox

S. M.

(2012). “If you can call it a poem”: Toward a framework for the assessment of arts-based works. Qualitative Research, 13(3), 318–336. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794112446104

40.

Laing

Wootton

(2007). Using podcasts in higher education. Health Information on the Internet, 60, 7–9.

41.

Lester

J. N.

Nusbaum

E. A.

(2018). “Reclaiming” disability in critical qualitative research: Introduction to the special issue. Qualitative Inquiry, 24(1), 3–7. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800417727761

42.

Levitt

H. M.

Morrill

Collins

K. M.

Rizo

J. L.

(2021). The methodological integrity of critical qualitative research: Principles to support design and research review. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 68(3), 357–370. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000523

43.

Liasidou

(2008). Critical discourse analysis and inclusive educational policies: The power to exclude. Journal of Education Policy, 23(5), 483–500.

44.

Liasidou

(2013). Intersectional understandings of disability and implications for a social justice reform agenda in education policy and practice. Disability & Society, 28(3), 299–312. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2012.710012

45.

Lopez

A. E.

Jean-Marie

(2021). Challenging anti-Black racism in everyday teaching, learning, and leading: From theory to practice. Journal of School Leadership, 31(1-2), 50–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052684621993115

46.

Mao

Mian Akram

Chovanec

Underwood

M. L.

(2016). Embracing the spiral: Researcher reflexivity in diverse critical methodologies. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 15(1), 1609406916681005.

47.

Marshall

(2012). Digging deeper: The challenge of problematising 'inclusive development' and 'disability mainstreaming. In Bletsas

Beasley

(Eds.), Engaging with Carol Bacchi: Strategic interventions and exchanges (pp. 53–70). University of Adelaide Press.

48.

McCauley

E. J.

(2020). The potential of college completion: How disability shapes labor market activity differentially by educational attainment and disability type. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 30(4), 213–222.

49.

Meekosha

(2008). Contextualizing disability: Developing southern/global theory. In 4th Biennial disability studies conference (pp. 1–20).

50.

Meekosha

(2011). Decolonising disability: Thinking and acting globally. Disability & Society, 26(6), 667–682. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2011.602860

51.

Milner

Frawley

(2019). From ‘on’to ‘with’to ‘by:’People with a learning disability creating a space for the third wave of inclusive research. Qualitative Research, 19(4), 382–398. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794118781385

52.

Naugle

Campbell

T. A.

Gray

N. D.

(2010). Post-secondary transition model for students with disabilities. Journal of School Counseling, 8(40), n40.

53.

Niesz

Kochb

Rumrillc

P. D.

(2008). The empowerment of people with disabilities through qualitative research. Work, 31(1), 113–125.

54.

Nind

(2017). The practical wisdom of inclusive research. Qualitative Research, 17(3), 278–288.

55.

O’Bryan

Hegelheimer

(2007). Integrating CALL into the classroom: The role of podcasting in an ESL listening strategies course. ReCALL: The Journal of EUROCALL, 19(2), 162–180. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344007000523

56.

O'Day

Killeen

(2002). Research on the lives of persons with disabilities: The emerging importance of qualitative research methodologies. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 13(1), 9–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/10442073020130010201

57.

Perrin

Atske

(2021). Americans with disabilities less likely than those without to own some digital devices. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/09/10/americans-with-disabilities-less-likely-than-those-without-to-own-some-digital-devices/

58.

Pessoa

A. S. G.

Harper

Santos

I. S.

Gracino

M. C. da S.

(2019). Using reflexive interviewing to foster deep understanding of research participants’ perspectives. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406918825026

59.

Pillow

(2003). Confession, catharsis, or cure? Rethinking the uses of reflexivity as methodological power in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 16(2), 175–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/0951839032000060635

60.

Reich

J. A.

(2021). Power, positionality, and the ethic of care in qualitative research. Qualitative Sociology, 44(4), 575–581. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-021-09500-4

61.

Rice

Bailey

K. A.

Cook

(2022). Mobilizing interference as methodology and metaphor in disability arts inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry, 28(3-4), 287–299. https://doi.org/10.1177/10778004211046249

62.

Richardson

(2000). Writing: A method of inquiry. In Denzin

N. K.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 923–948). Sage.

63.

Richardson

Harrison

St Pierre

(2008). Writing: A method of inquiry. In Denzin

N. K.

(Ed.). Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials (pp. 473–500). Sage.

64.

Rogers

Herbert

(2020). Podcasts and urban studies: Notes from the field; sounds from the studio. Urban Policy and Research, 38(1), 63–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/08111146.2019.1663726

65.

Rogers

Herbert

Whitzman

McCann

Maginn

P. J.

Watts

Alam

Pill

Keil

Dreher

Novacevski

Byrne

Osborne

Budenbender

Alizadeh

Murray

Dombroski

Prasad

Connolly

Caldis

(2020). The city under COVID 19: Podcasting as digital methodology. Journal of Economic and Human Geography, 111(3), 434–450. https://doi.org/10.1111/tesg.12426

66.

Rossell-Aguilar

(2007). Top of the pods–in search of a podcasting ‘‘pedagogy’’ for language learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20(5), 471–492. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588220701746047

67.

Singer

J. B.

(2019). Podcasting as social scholarship: A tool to increase the public impact of scholarship and research. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research, 10(4), 571–590. https://doi.org/10.1086/706600

68.

Slee

Corcoran

Best

(2019). Disability studies in education–building platforms to reclaim disability and recognise disablement. Journal of Disability Studies in Education, 1(1-2), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1163/25888803-00101002

69.

Smith

A. D.

(2022). The Black podcaster-scholar: A critical reflection of using podcasting as methodology as a Black doctoral student. Social Media+ Society, 8(3). Advanced online.https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051221117576

70.

Solórzano

D. G.

Yosso

T. J.

(2002). Critical race methodology: Counter-storytelling as an analytical framework for education research. Qualitative Inquiry, 8(1), 23–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/107780040200800103

71.

Stapleton

James

(2020). Not another all white study: Challenging color-evasiveness ideology in disability scholarship (Practice Brief). Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 33(3), 215–222. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1281055

72.

Supple

Abgenyega

(2011). Developing the understanding and practice of inclusion in higher education for international students with disabilities/additional needs: A whole schooling approach. International Journal of Whole Schooling, 7(2), 92–108. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ961503

73.

Tierney

W. G.

Clemens

R. F.

(2011). Qualitative research and public policy: The challenges of relevance and trustworthiness. In Smart

Paulsen

(Eds.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (26, pp. 57–84): Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0702-3_2

74.

Topping

Douglas

Winkler

(2021). General considerations for conducting online qualitative research and practice implications for interviewing people with acquired brain injury. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 20, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069211019615

75.

Trevisan

(2021). Making focus groups accessible and inclusive for people with communication disabilities: A research note. Qualitative Research, 21(4), 619–627. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794120941846

76.

Tuck

(2009). Suspending damage: A letter to communities. Harvard Educational Review, 79(3), 409–428.

77.

Vehmas

Watson

(2014). Moral wrongs, disadvantages, and disability: A critique of critical disability studies. Disability & Society, 29(4), 638–650. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2013.831751

78.

Walmsley

(2006). Normalisation, emancipatory research and inclusive research in learning disability. In Overcoming disabling barriers (pp. 335–355). Routledge.

79.

Williams

(2020). Political science and podcasts: An introduction. PS, Political Science & Politics, 53(2), 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096519001677

80.

Wolbring

Lillywhite

(2021). Equity/equality, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) in universities: The case of disabled people. Societies, 11(2), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc11020049

81.

Wong

(2022). Year of the Tiger: An activist's life. Vintage Books.

82.

Woodward

(2022). Podcasting as pedagogy: Providing more than flexibility during challenging times. Journal of Political Science Education, 18(4), 614–623. https://doi.org/10.1080/15512169.2022.2102028

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.

0.00 MB

0.06 MB