“Talking the Same Language”: The Influence of Sharing a Visual Impairment Identity Between Researchers and Participants on Enhancing Participant Recruitment and Fostering Rapport During Interviews With Blind Individuals

Abstract

Interviews are increasingly being recognized as a valuable data collection method among researchers conducting studies involving individuals with visual impairments. Conducting interviews with individuals who are visually impaired raises diverse ethical, methodological, and theoretical concerns. However, several compelling questions remain unresolved, such as: Should qualitative researchers belong to the population they are studying, such as being visually impaired when researching the experiences of visually impaired individuals? Is a blind individual’s willingness to participate in interviews influenced by whether the interviewer has a visual impairment or not? Does a researcher’s membership within the group being studied ensure the establishment of strong rapport? What are the recommended guidelines for establishing rapport with blind individuals during interviews? Using autoethnography, I will share my personal experiences and those of other researchers investigating visually impaired people in establishing rapport with blind interview subjects. The article will provide insights into the principles of rapport building, informed by the perspectives of ten disability scholars who have conducted interviews with blind individuals. I contend that when researchers share the same identity as the community they are studying, the number of study participants tends to increase. Additionally, the sense of rapport between researchers and participants is significantly enhanced. Consequently, the article makes several significant contributions that benefit both blind and sighted researchers. It equips them with techniques and strategies for interacting effectively with visually impaired individuals during interviews.

Keywords

rapport visually impaired blindness qualitative interviews consent form

Introduction

As the World Health Organization estimates, there are about 2.2 billion people with visual impairments globally (World Health Organization, 2023). Visually impaired individuals play a significant role in qualitative research, serving in various capacities as both researchers and participants. Historically and currently, the majority of qualitative studies focusing on visually impaired individuals have been conducted by sighted researchers (Arndt, 2011; Della Líbera & Jurberg, 2017; Quainoo et al., 2023). As a result, visually impaired interviewees have often faced numerous challenges and encountered uncomfortable situations. Some qualitative researchers employ language that can be hurtful to interviewees with visual impairments (e.g. people with sight loss, visually disabled, and physically challenged) (Kolli et al., 2020). Moreover, some researchers adjust the interview environment by adding extra lighting or wearing high-contrast clothing when meeting with visually impaired participants, believing these modifications enhance accessibility for individuals with varying degrees of visual impairment. Such measures are not considered practical for individuals with severe visual impairments or those who are completely blind. Some researchers provide large print documents to interviewees who are completely blind, indicating a lack of awareness regarding appropriate reading formats for individuals with visual impairments (Stearns et al., 2016). What should be borne in mind is that people with specific visual impairments require specific adaptations to be made to interview procedures.

Visually impaired individuals face numerous challenges during interviews due to the absence of guidelines that inform qualitative researchers about the most suitable methods and techniques for conducting interviews with blind subjects. Specifically, the best practices for establishing rapport with visually impaired individuals remain unclear. Further, we remain uncertain whether visually impaired individuals decide to participate in interviews based on whether the researcher is a blind ‘insider’ or a sighted ‘outsider’ (Chhabra, 2020). Upon reviewing the literature, it becomes evident that there is a scarcity of articles addressing how qualitative researchers can improve rapport with visually impaired individuals during interviews (Ahmed et al., 2011; Duckett & Pratt, 2001; Trujillo, 2018). Surprisingly, only few articles on establishing rapport with blind participants or on the experiences of qualitative researchers interviewing blind individuals were authored by visually impaired researchers (Aishwarya, 2022; Bulk, 2020; Emara, 2023; Chhabra, 2020). This indicates a significant research gap in the integration of visually impaired individuals into qualitative research. In this article, I explore this topic in detail, sharing my personal experience conducting interviews with 19 visually impaired bloggers. Additionally, I discuss the challenges faced by both blind and sighted researchers in establishing rapport with visually impaired individuals during qualitative interviews. In doing so, I incorporate insights from ten scholars, both sighted and blind, who have conducted interviews with visually impaired individuals across a range of disciplines.

Historically, disability scholars have argued that issues related to disability should primarily be examined by researchers with disabilities themselves (Kitchin, 2000; O'Brien et al., 2014; Stone & Priestley, 1996; Tregaskis, 2004). In line with this perspective, researchers who are blind are often seen as more qualified to explore issues pertinent to the blind community (Duckett & Pratt, 2001). In practice, disabled academics have long been marginalized within disability-focused research (Beazley et al., 1997). In response, Barton (2005) argues that non-disabled researchers should establish communication channels with disabled researchers to foster a more inclusive research culture, thereby ensuring the integration of disabled individuals in academia. Furthermore, Oliver (2013) advocates for freeing studies focusing on disabled individuals from the dominance of non-disabled researchers, asserting that disabled researchers should have the right to lead scientific research on disability. He terms this approach ‘emancipatory research.’

Building on this argument, I ask whether visually impaired individuals should be interviewed by researchers who are also visually impaired or by sighted researchers. Should interviewers share the same characteristics or interests as their interviewees? The question of similarity or familiarity between researchers and participants has been extensively explored in qualitative research literature (Garton & Copland, 2010; Kanuha, 2000). Previous studies have indicated that communication between the interviewer and subjects can be problematic when they belong to different genders, especially when discussing sensitive topics (Gailey & Prohaska, 2011). Widdicombe (2015) encountered numerous challenges in communicating with interviewees due to their diverse cultural backgrounds, with rapport building being a key issue. In her longitudinal studies, Oakley (2016) found that females often prefer interacting with female interviewers due to shared experiences and common topics of discussion that facilitate communication. Likewise, Grenier (2007) mentions that the interviewer and interviewees do not need to be the same age. Intergenerational interactions can provide mutual learning opportunities and help mitigate potential conflicts. The concept of similarity between interviewer and interviewee is closely related to whether the interviewer is a member of the group being studied. Insider interviewers are more readily accepted by the communities they study, share numerous commonalities with interviewees, possess greater familiarity with the study’s topic, and have access to more information from their identity group (Dwyer & Buckle, 2009).

In this article, I employ autoethnography as the methodological approach to present my reflections. Ellis et al. (2011) define autoethnography as: “A research method that uses personal experience (‘auto’) to describe and interpret (‘graphy’) cultural texts, experiences, beliefs, and practices (‘ethno’).” I am a legally blind researcher with a deep interest in conducting studies that explore key issues impacting the blind community. Before entering academia as a blind researcher, I declined to participate in interviews as a blind subject because the interviewers employed inappropriate practices in their attempts to persuade me to take part. Examples of these practices include the use of discriminatory terms (e.g., “handicapped people” and “physically challenged”) and asking questions that reveal a lack of sufficient knowledge about blind people among sighted researchers (e.g., “Do blind people dream?” and “Do blind people watch TV?”). Individuals with visual impairments are often reluctant to participate in interviews due to these discriminatory practices and other factors, which I will discuss below. As a researcher, I had to address the challenges related to recruiting visually impaired interviewees for the aforementioned study. Therefore, this article examines why some visually impaired individuals refuse to participate in qualitative studies, particularly those involving interviews, and explores strategies to encourage their participation. This article also investigates whether sharing the same identity (a visual impairment) enhances rapport between blind researchers and participants, and whether it leads to an increase in the number of blind participants in qualitative interview studies. The scarcity of articles and empirical studies on interviewing visually impaired individuals underscores the need for more contemporary research in this field.

Data Collection Tools: Blind People as Participants

Researchers utilize a variety of tools to collect data from visually impaired individuals; however, some of these tools are considered accessible to this group, while others are not. For instance, individuals with visual impairments generally find electronic questionnaires preferable to paper-based ones. Visually impaired individuals often prefer electronic questionnaires because the participants’ disabilities are not visible to the researcher, thereby minimizing the potential for bias or discomfort. Similarly, visually impaired individuals are generally more inclined to participate in face-to-face interviews rather than in focus discussion groups or ethnographic studies. In face-to-face interviews, blind subjects are in close proximity to the researcher, creating a ‘comfort zone’ that allows them to open up and share their views more freely. Visually impaired individuals generally prefer interviews that rely primarily on auditory communication, as this serves as a reasonable alternative to vision. “The researcher should allow participants with visual impairments to decide the format of the interview; it could take place in person, via Zoom, via telephone, or even via email” (E. Houston, personal communication, March 6, 2024). Further, Trujillo Tanner et al. (2018) suggested that blind individuals should be interviewed via telephone, as it facilitates flexible scheduling of interviews. Additionally, completing a questionnaire over the phone with the researcher is highly preferred by visually impaired individuals (Brown & Boardman, 2011; Gold et al., 2010; Tjostheim et al., 2011). Similarly, electronic interviews are cost-effective, timely, secure, and well-suited for exploring sensitive topics with blind individuals (Brown & Boardman, 2011; De Leeuw et al., 2003). This article focuses specifically on interviewing visually impaired individuals. Other data collection tools used in qualitative research will not be discussed, as they fall outside the scope of this article.

The Institutional Review Board (IRB): Key issues

There are numerous ethical considerations that researchers must take into account when conducting interviews with visually impaired individuals. Visually impaired researchers possess firsthand knowledge of how to protect visually impaired interview subjects: “I believe that blind researchers conducting research with blind people is also important in relation to research ethics, as blind researchers can draw on their personal experiences as a way of approaching research in more sensitive ways, which are aligned with the social model of disability (¹)” (E. Houston, personal communication, March 6, 2024). Moore notes that obtaining Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval is a significant challenge for researchers studying individuals with visual impairments, primarily due to concerns about their “vulnerability” (Moore, 2002). A lack of vision can sometimes make visually impaired individuals vulnerable to deception and coercion in the context of participating in interviews. To protect visually impaired participants from potential vulnerabilities, Iacono (2006) suggests that family members and caregivers of visually impaired individuals involved in interviews should oversee and review the study procedures. Therefore, an individual accompanying a visually impaired interviewee, referred to as a witness, should alert the researcher to any study procedures that might be considered harmful to the interviewee. However, some visually impaired individuals live alone and therefore lack a family member to act as a witness. Additionally, some people with visual impairments may prefer not to seek assistance from relatives or friends (Stevens, 2003), and others may wish to maintain their privacy by not having caregivers present during the interview (Ahmed et al., 2015). Thus, requesting that a blind person bring a sighted witness to the interview is often impractical, as it may lead to feelings of incapacity or inferiority among blind individuals. Therefore, the researcher should select the most appropriate protective measures to safeguard potential participants from vulnerabilities, recognizing that these measures will vary depending on the specific study and the individual involved.

Participant confidentiality is a critical concern that researchers must address when applying for IRB approval. Any identifying details about visually impaired participants, including names or unique descriptions, should be carefully excluded from research articles or study materials (Stineman & Musick, 2001). In closely-knit blind communities, maintaining anonymity can be particularly challenging, as certain characteristics or descriptions might inadvertently reveal participants’ identities. Researchers should also be cautious when disclosing information about participants' medical conditions, as rare diseases could make individuals identifiable.

To address these concerns, researchers must adopt rigorous confidentiality measures, including secure data storage practices, anonymization of identifiable information, and obtaining ongoing informed consent. Additionally, involving a blind researcher in the IRB review process for studies involving blind participants is essential, as sighted researchers may not fully recognize these specific ethical challenges. These precautions ensure that ethical standards are upheld, even in situations where preserving confidentiality presents unique difficulties.

Recruiting Visually Impaired Participants: Problems and Solutions

While numerous qualitative studies involving sighted individuals often include a limited number of interview participants, research focusing on individuals with visual impairments similarly encounters this issue (Duckett & Pratt, 2001). Individuals with visual impairments often exhibit a lack of interest in participating in interviews when their specific challenges and needs are not adequately considered by the researcher from the outset. For instance, a recruitment method employed by a sighted researcher to identify potential interviewees with visual impairments may be inappropriate or ineffective for the blind community. Consequently, blind people are often excluded from studies that aim to target the broader mainstream population. This problem creates a division between sighted and blind people, though the two communities should be represented in research on an equal footing. Therefore, sighted researchers should select recruitment materials that are accessible to visually impaired interviewees. Visually impaired individuals can access information through Braille or large print, as well as by listening to audio recordings or electronic files (Emara, 2022a). Indeed, studies specifically designed for blind participants employed recruitment materials in accessible formats (Harris & Roberts, 2003), whereas the majority of studies that included both blind and sighted participants did not adequately accommodate the needs of the blind community (Duckett & Pratt, 2001). I contend that blind individuals possess greater awareness of accessible formats for the visually impaired compared to sighted researchers, and as a result, their decisions regarding the most suitable recruitment materials are likely to be more accurate.

Researchers should not only consider the format of recruitment materials but also the methods used to recruit study participants. Given that visually impaired individuals may feel uncomfortable speaking with strangers (Goharrizi, 2010), researchers should consider reaching out to organizations that support the blind to assist in recruiting potential participants (Trujillo Tanner et al., 2018). In this context, these organizations act as mediators (Duckett & Pratt, 2001). However, this method may not be convenient for some visually impaired individuals, particularly those who are not members of organizations for the blind or not-for-profit organizations that provide services to them (Longmore, 2015). Alternatively, researchers can recruit potential visually impaired participants through their personal contacts. Blind researchers often prefer this technique because the blind community is considered to be close-knit (Carrillo, 2018).

Invitation Letter in Different Modes

A researcher sends an invitation letter to potential participants to encourage their participation in an interview. Some researchers send invitation letters to blind individuals in formats that are inaccessible to them. For example, researchers might send a printed invitation letter to solicit the participation of potential participants who are visually impaired (Pan et al., 2015; Ramos et al., 2018). Alternatively, an invitation letter, along with promotional materials for recruiting study participants, can be distributed via email (Glenk et al., 2019). This recruitment method presents a significant challenge for the blind, as users of screen reader software (²) may miss the opportunity to read a call for participants’ messages sent by email. Navigating through numerous email messages can be time-consuming, as screen reader users must read emails sequentially (Borodin et al., 2010). Consequently, users of screen reader software may read only a limited number of email messages or prioritize messages from known senders. The same issue arises if a call for blind participants is advertised on Facebook. Some researchers have posted calls for participants on Facebook pages or groups dedicated to visual impairment (Arndt, 2011; Menzies et al., 2020). The post containing the call for participants may appear at the bottom of a Facebook page, particularly if numerous posts are made daily on the same page. As a result, blind individuals are unlikely to see the call for participants, as they would need to invest considerable time in navigating to the post that includes the announcement. Screen reader users typically read only the most recent posts in their Facebook timeline (Buzzi et al., 2010). Furthermore, distributing the call for blind participants via Twitter (Morris et al., 2016) is not a viable option, as numerous studies have demonstrated that Twitter is not an accessible social networking site for individuals with visual impairments (Alkhathlan et al., 2021; Buzzi et al., 2011). WhatsApp, however, is becoming increasingly popular among blind individuals (Della Líbera & Jurberg, 2017). Thus, researchers can potentially reach a significant number of blind participants through this application.

I propose that providing blind individuals with an invitation letter in Braille could be an effective method for researchers to recruit a substantial number of participants. For some blind individuals, Braille is the most prevalent reading method, as it is often regarded as a primary symbol of accessibility for the blind community (Tobin & Hill, 2015). Some researchers have invited visually impaired individuals to participate in interviews by using invitation letters created in Braille (Emara, 2022b). Unfortunately, the number of visually impaired individuals who read Braille is diminishing (Sheffield et al., 2022). Furthermore, Braille presents several challenges, including bulkiness, fatigue, and the potential for increased time and cost (Sacks et al., 2011; Tobin & Hill, 2015). In contrast, partially sighted individuals often prefer large print over Braille as a reading method. Preparing an invitation letter in a large print format can be costly, and researchers must adhere to specific guidelines for the production of large print documents (American Council of the Blind, n.d.). Therefore, researchers must be aware of the type of visual impairment and preferred reading method of interview respondents to ensure that the invitation letter is provided in an accessible format.

Consent Forms: Which to Choose

The researcher should obtain consent from the individual participating in the interview. Blind interviewees can provide consent in one of several accessible formats, such as Braille, audio, or electronic. Some researchers obtain consent from visually impaired individuals for participating in interviews by offering consent forms in Braille (Bam & Ronnie, 2020; Ligali, 2020; Russomanno et al., 2015). However, most visually impaired participants prefer verbal consent over Braille due to its greater ease and convenience (Das et al., 2022; Huff et al., 2021). Participants in the study by Della Líbera and Jurberg (2017) opted for oral consent because printed consent forms typically require a fingerprint signature. Some blind individuals may feel uncomfortable using a fingerprint for signatures, as this method is sometimes associated with illiteracy in certain countries (Kumar et al., 2021). Accordingly, interview subjects with visual impairments often find verbal consent less embarrassing than printed consent. Furthermore, a large-print consent form is suitable for participants with partial sight (Kim, 2024). In this regard, Trujillo Tanner et al. (2018) provide guidelines for researchers on how to design consent forms for participants with partial sight.

Similarly, completing a consent form electronically is not a feasible option for blind participants. A blind participant may take significantly more time to read and sign an electronic consent form compared to providing verbal consent, due to the slower reading speed of screen reader users (Lee et al., 2014). Therefore, researchers should send the consent form to blind participants before conducting the interview, allowing them to complete it at their convenience. Another drawback of electronic consent is that sighted researchers may inadvertently focus their attention on visually impaired participants while they use assistive technology devices to complete the consent process (Hughes, 1999; Morris, 1991).

Language and Terminology

One potential issue that might discourage visually impaired individuals from participating in interviews is the use of terminology that may be considered offensive to the visually impaired community (Bolt, 2005). Negative terms associated with blindness, such as “sight loss,” “visual disability,” and “handicapped,” may appear in invitation letters, advertisements for potential interview participants, and consent forms. There is ongoing debate about whether researchers should use person-first language or disability-first language when referring to individuals with visual impairments in interviews (Pommier, 2008). I believe researchers should use person-first language, to ensure that blind individuals participating in interviews feel recognized as people first, with their visual impairment not being the primary focus of the conversation. Therefore, researchers should avoid using terms such as “handicapped,” “visually challenged,” “physically challenged,” and “visually limited” (Bolt, 2012).

Visually Impaired Interviewers and Visually Impaired Subjects: ‘I’m One of Them’

Sighted and blind researchers study issues relevant to the blind community using interviews. However, I concur with Hammer (2013) that visually impaired individuals are more likely to participate in interviews conducted by blind interviewers rather than sighted ones. Blind researchers are often prioritized in investigating issues affecting the blind community because they are considered “insiders” due to their membership in the community (Seymour, 2007): “I do think that some blind people will be appreciative of researchers who are also blind” (D. Bolt, personal communication, March 6, 2024). “I think that blind people would probably be more likely to participate in research or agree to give an interview if they know that the researcher is also blind” (E. Houston, personal communication, March 6, 2024). Blind individuals often have a strong sense of community (Chavis et al., 1986), which enables blind researchers to effectively encourage their blind peers to participate in interviews by leveraging the slogan, “I am one of you” (Brown & Boardman, 2011). Blind individuals are more comfortable interacting with a blind researcher because the blind researcher shares similar experiences, uses the same assistive technology, and is well-versed in the lived experiences of blind people. Some visually impaired individuals are more inclined to give consent to participate in an interview upon learning that the interviewer is blind:

Haya, a 57-year-old blind woman, answered my call. After reciting the short introduction to my research topic and explaining the interview structure in the most welcoming yet confident voice I could manage to produce, I heard a long pause. I held my breath, feeling the sweat dripping down my chest. A few seconds passed before Haya threw her first question at me: ‘Are you blind?’ (Hammer, 2013, Para. 15).

In Chhabra’s (2020) research, participants shared their lived experiences and challenges with a visually impaired researcher who was blind himself. As a result, these participants encouraged their peers to participate in the study. Similarly, in a study by Hill, a visually impaired researcher developed the interview questions independently, without the assistance of her sighted colleagues (Hill et al., 2022). When both the researcher and the participant are blind, they may be more comfortable managing awkward situations during interviews, such as a blind interviewer inadvertently bumping into a blind interviewee while moving around the interview room.

Although visually impaired researchers should be given priority for conducting interviews with their peers, caregivers of visually impaired individuals can also take the initiative to conduct interviews with members of this group:

I think that is best but if there isn’t a blind researcher available, maybe a strong blind ally researcher would work. I know several Disability Studies academic faculty researchers who became interested in Disability Studies because they have a family member who is disabled. Most of them are strong disability community allies. (B. Haller, personal communication, March 10, 2024).

A sighted researcher might explain that blind individuals are often reluctant to participate in interviews conducted by sighted researchers due to concerns about a lack of understanding, possible insensitivity, or discomfort with the researcher’s unfamiliarity with the specific challenges and experiences of being blind: “Over many decades, disabled people have given lots of time and energy to research, receiving little benefits in return” (E. Houston, personal communication, March 6, 2024). However, when visual impairment is a common characteristic between the researcher and the participant, the validity of the study results may be compromised due to potential biases or a lack of diverse perspectives. Additionally, the researcher’s closeness to the participants can increase data bias. A blind researcher might unintentionally influence the responses of blind interview subjects to align with the expectations or preferences of the blind community. As Andrews writes:

The need for reflexivity was particularly relevant when interviewing people living with similar impairments to my own, as I needed to be aware of the impact that my own thoughts, feelings, and emotions could have on both the interview situation and on my ‘self’ (Andrews*, 2005, p. 208).

Discussing the aspects related to conducting interviews with blind individuals can inadvertently reinforce the perception of this group as fundamentally different from the rest of society. Emphasizing specialized methods and considerations may perpetuate the notion that blind people require fundamentally different approaches, rather than integrating their needs into broader research practices: “Interviewing blind people should be no different from interviewing anyone else” (G. Kleege, personal communication, March 8, 2024). Additionally, some experts argue that the study of issues affecting individuals with blindness should not be restricted to blind scholars alone. They believe that a diverse range of researchers, including those with sighted perspectives, can offer valuable insights and contribute meaningfully to the study of blindness:

While there has been a move toward activist and insider scholarship within the burgeoning field of critical disability studies in India and elsewhere—with growing numbers of disabled scholars conducting research on disability issues— I argue that researchers’ own experience of disability may not be sufficient to grasp the disability experience, as disability is enmeshed within different constitutive axes of identity (Chaudhry, 2018, p.72). Supporting this view, Brown and Boardman (2011) emphasize that studies should aim to include a diverse range of participants, regardless of whether they are blind or sighted.

Building Rapport with Visually Impaired Participants: I am Among Them

Qualitative researchers conducting interviews should establish mutual understanding or rapport with their subjects (Prior, 2018). Visually impaired individuals may sometimes feel hesitant to discuss their personal or lived experiences publicly or even in the presence of other visually impaired peers (Duckett & Pratt, 2001). A researcher interviewing blind individuals can build rapport by using icebreakers—questions designed to reduce anxiety and alleviate fear associated with the interview. I believe that icebreakers in interviews with blind individuals should focus on topics related to blindness or visual impairment, such as asking about their favorite audiobooks or audio-described movies. Questions like “What is your favorite color?” should be avoided, as blind individuals may not welcome inquiries about visual or ocular-centric topics (Schillmeier, 2008). Generally, blind individuals prefer not to have their visual impairment become the main focus of conversations: “So, I was more careful of what questions I asked him and I did not focus too much on how his sight loss affected his painting—this would have slipped into stereotypes anyway” (C. Brylla, personal communication, March 11, 2024).

In one study, blind participants asked the blind interviewer, Chaudhry, questions about living with blindness, which strengthened their sense of rapport (Chaudhry, 2018). Building rapport in an interview can be facilitated when blind researchers communicate with blind participants using assistive technology. For example, a blind interviewer can use a Braille display (³) to write interview questions, allowing blind interviewees to read the questions and provide their answers independently and in real time. In Duckett and Pratt’s study, a participant showcased a tape machine used for reading audiobooks, enhancing engagement during the interview (Duckett & Pratt, 2001). Visually impaired participants also became more engaged upon hearing the voice of the screen reader installed on the researcher’s laptop (Chhabra, 2020).

Additionally, blind interviewees may establish greater rapport with blind interviewers if they walk together using a white cane or a guide dog to the interview location. Similarly, participants who use wheelchairs often express sympathy toward a researcher who also uses a wheelchair, as both utilize the same mobility assistive technology and thus share common experiences (Andrews*, 2005). Bickford (2004) allowed visually impaired individuals to choose the location of their interviews, recognizing that some visually impaired people may not be regular commuters or users of public transportation (Crudden et al., 2015). Furthermore, Hammer (2013) touched the bodies of visually impaired women during interviews to establish and maintain a strong rapport. it is more common for female researchers to engage in physical touch, such as hugging or light touching, with female participants; however, this practice must be approached with sensitivity, given the vulnerability of the participants and the potential implications of such interactions. Previous studies have shown that visually impaired participants tend to trust a blind researcher, especially if they are acquainted with each other: “As a result, the survey was implemented by the senior author who, as a disabled person involved in the disability rights movement, was at least somewhat known to the group” (Hahn & Belt, 2004, p. 455). Similarly, visually impaired individuals may feel more comfortable discussing their experiences with a researcher if their caregivers or parents are present during the interview (Collier et al., 2010).

Another way to enhance rapport is by involving blind participants in the design and implementation of the study (Duckett & Pratt, 2001; Kitchin, 2000). In other words, blind participants should take an active role as co-researchers to create a more inclusive research environment (Susana Rojas Pernia & Ignacio Haya-Salmón, 2021). Conducting interviews remotely via Zoom or other teleconferencing software can diminish rapport, as blind individuals have limited tools to communicate gestures or facial expressions over the internet (Akamoglu et al., 2018).

Identity Disclosure and Building Rapport

The current research posits that disclosing the researcher’s visual impairment significantly enhances the engagement of blind interviewees during the interview process. Previous research supports the advantage of disclosing the researcher’s disability identity to individuals with disabilities during both the preparation and implementation phases of a study (Mohler & Rudman, 2022). In the research that inspired this article (Emara, 2024; Emara & Haller, 2024), blind participants showed a high degree of empathy during interviews, likely due to our shared visual impairment. The email invitation requesting their participation began with the statement: “I am a visually impaired researcher, and I am committed to conducting research that benefits the blind community.” This disclosure cultivated a deep sense of mutual understanding and focus that might not have been afforded to a sighted researcher.

While responding to the interview questions, participants shared situations and personal experiences, suggesting that I likely face similar challenges in my daily life. For example, one participant expressed dissatisfaction with the inaccessibility of websites, implying that this issue similarly affects me: “I bet you’ve been through websites like that” (Interviewee, a blind male blogger). Another participant discussed the challenges of interacting with visual content on the web and its impact on both of us:

“Where images don't have the alternative text tag, which, for screen reader users like [you and me], means checking if an image lacks this information. Our screen readers can’t find it if it’s not there” (interviewee, a blind female blogger).

One participant noted that both she and I, along with the broader blind community, are subjected to negative stereotypes: “Some believe that a person should avoid using words like ‘look’ and ‘see’ when talking to the visually impaired. [You’ve] probably run into this before” (interview, a blind female blogger). Another participant highlighted that web accessibility is a significant concern for many visually impaired individuals, including both of us:

“When they hold regional conferences, called WordCamps, to help bloggers—whether new or experienced—they always have talks on accessibility from people like [you and me], who live with the technology every day” (interviewee, a low vision female blogger).

Another participant emphasized our shared understanding of visual impairment due to our common identity:

“So, for me personally, I believe that I shouldn't be writing about all sorts of topics. Because, as a blind person, [I'm sure you understand this.] The great thing about visual impairment is that, although it separates many people from us, it also brings together those who have not met before. Like [you and I], who can relate to certain things that sighted friends might understand but can’t quite relate to” (interviewee, a blind female blogger).

How to communicate with blind people in interviews: Better communication for better rapport

Indeed, numerous scholars have underscored the importance of establishing effective communication between the researcher and visually impaired participants during interviews (e.g., Moore, 2002). Visually impaired individuals participating in interviews have an advantage over representatives of other disability groups in that they can articulate their thoughts independently (Teachman et al., 2018). For example, individuals who are deaf often require an interpreter during interviews, particularly if the researcher is not proficient in sign language (Cramer & Steinbach, 2021).

Nevertheless, sighted interviewers may inadvertently mock the body movements of blind individuals, such as tilting their heads back, moving their heads around, or rocking back and forth—behaviors often referred to as “blind mannerisms” (Eichel, 1978). Furthermore, communicating with blind individuals through eye gaze, eye contact, or pointing poses challenges (Qiu et al., 2015). Therefore, verbal cues are more crucial for communicating with visually impaired interview subjects than visual cues. A sighted researcher should either speak first or provide an audio cue when entering the interview room. A common mistake is remaining silent or failing to address the blind participant directly. If a researcher escorts a blind participant to the interview room, they should use the sighted guide technique, avoiding grabbing the participant’s arm and instead allowing them to walk a half step behind (Chamberlain, 2019). Researchers should also use audio cues to inform blind respondents about interview procedures typically perceived through vision: “Another thing is that I quickly learned to tell my characters when to start and stop recording, and where I am standing in relation to them, so they know what is going on. So, lots of verbal cues” (C. Brylla, personal communication, March 11, 2024).

If you include visual materials (such as photographs or images as prompts for discussion), you should provide a verbal description or invite the participant to bring someone who can describe the visuals. Alternatively, you could share images with participants before the interview, giving them time to familiarize themselves with the content (E. Houston, personal communication, March 6, 2024). A blind researcher is more likely to be aware of these considerations than a sighted researcher.

During interviews, sighted researchers may use terms such as “look,” “see,” and “watch,” often neglecting the negative impact these words may have on individuals with visual impairments (Fryer, 2013). Researchers within the blind community are likely to avoid these terms when communicating with interviewees who have visual impairments. Moore (2002) suggests using verbal communication to establish a personal connection, employing affiliative tokens such as “uh-huh,” “yes,” or “uhm.” While sighted researchers can recognize the interviewee’s gestures, this dynamic may not apply if the interviewer is also blind or has limited vision. In blind-to-blind conversations, both parties must seek alternative methods of communication.

I suggest that a visually impaired interviewer focus on analyzing the interviewee’s voice, paying attention to pitch and tone. Changes in the participant’s voice should be monitored, documented in the interviewer’s notes, and reported in the study’s results. Additionally, the interviewer should record the interviewee’s reactions to questions, including sounds such as “aahs,” “buzzes,” and laughs. If the interview is conducted over the phone, the blind interviewer should be attentive to the environmental sounds surrounding the interviewee, as these may provide valuable information. To ensure confidentiality, participants should be informed that all non-verbal reactions will be monitored and documented. Quainoo et al. (2023) permitted blind interviewees to review their statements by listening to the recorded interview, a process known as member checking or respondent validation.

Negative Practices

Some interviews address sensitive topics that visually impaired individuals may prefer not to discuss. For example, researchers have investigated experiences of sexual assault among visually impaired students at residential schools for the blind (Wild et al., 2014). Kvam’s survey on sexual abuse among the visually impaired in Norway also reported a low response rate (Kvam, 2005). While both sighted and blind individuals generally prefer to avoid discussing sensitive topics during interviews, visually impaired people often encounter numerous challenging and potentially embarrassing issues specifically related to visual impairment.

On the other hand, visually impaired individuals who have participated in interviews in previous studies often report negative impressions and experiences, which may deter them from participating in future interviews. These experiences can include financial exploitation, psychological abuse, and physical assault (Shakespeare, 1996). Some researchers mistakenly raise their voices when speaking to blind individuals, assuming their hearing ability is compromised. Additionally, researchers sometimes perpetuate harmful stereotypes, such as the “supercrip,” “victimhood,” or “tragedy” stereotypes, when interviewing visually impaired people (C. Brylla, personal communication, March 11, 2024). The “supercrip” stereotype refers to the perception of a blind individual who achieves significant accomplishments as an extraordinary or exceptional person (Schalk, 2016). The “victimhood” stereotype, or the tragic view of blindness, suggests that blind individuals live in a state of frustration, sadness, and suffering due to their impairment (Demirci, 2021).

Reflexivity and Positionality

Disabled scholars recognize their role as both insiders and experts when researching their own communities (Seymour, 2007; Shakespeare, 1996). However, the identity of a blind researcher may sometimes be overshadowed by other intersecting identities, such as gender or race (Chaudhry, 2018). A blind researcher might be perceived as an outsider if their perspective on visual impairment or disability differs from that of their blind participants (Chaudhry, 2018). While some scholars recommend that researchers avoid disclosing their disability identity, I believe that sharing this identity is crucial for establishing rapport with blind subjects during interviews.

Discussion

In this article, I explored the process of conducting interviews with blind subjects and strategies for enhancing rapport between interviewers and interviewees. The study addresses whether the relationship between the interviewer and interviewee matters in qualitative research. I believe that the most effective way to build rapport in interviews with blind subjects is to have these interviews conducted by blind researchers. This approach increases the number of interview participants and enhances communication between the researcher and the subjects. Creating mutual understanding can be achieved through appropriate recruitment methods, accessible invitation letters, and accessible consent forms. Informants often feel reassured when speaking with someone from their community who shares the same identity. Consequently, blind informants—similar to those in my study—frequently use plural pronouns (e.g., “we” or “us”) when responding to interview questions, even if the questions are directed at an individual.

While eye contact can be important for communication during interviews, it poses significant challenges for blind researchers (Seymour, 2007). Therefore, blind researchers should develop alternative methods for communicating with blind interviewees to maintain rapport and ensure effective interaction. On the other hand, blind individuals can be interviewed by sighted researchers, provided the researchers demonstrate a high level of understanding and respect throughout the interview process. Catalin Brylla employed the EMIC research approach, which focuses on studying blind subjects from their own perspective rather than that of the researcher (Brylla, 2017). Researchers interviewing blind individuals must recognize that they cannot rely on visual cues and should use sound and audio instructions as alternatives.

A limitation of the approach I suggest in this article is the shortage of researchers with visual impairments, making it difficult to conduct studies with this community across all topics. Additionally, it’s important to distinguish between studies that focus specifically on issues relevant to people with visual impairments and those that address more general topics. The approach I propose is more effective for studies directly related to this community, as researchers with visual impairments may not be well-suited for studies requiring perfect visual acuity. This article does not imply that sighted researchers are excluded from studying people with visual impairments; rather, it suggests that, where possible, involving researchers who share this lived experience is a more practical approach.

This research has several limitations that should be acknowledged. First, the number of scholars who contributed their perspectives on interviewing visually impaired individuals is relatively small. As a result, the insights provided may not fully represent the breadth of opinions or practices within the field. Second, as an autoethnographic study, the inclusion of the author as a contributor may introduce potential biases. My personal experiences and viewpoints as a blind researcher could influence the interpretation of the findings, and this aspect of the research must be considered when evaluating the conclusions drawn.

Additionally, some of the ideas presented in this article may be misinterpreted. Specifically, the argument that blind researchers should be involved in studies concerning visually impaired people may be misconstrued as advocating for the domination of blind researchers in blindness-related research. However, the goal is not to suggest that only blind researchers should conduct research with blind participants, but rather to emphasize the importance of understanding and addressing the specific ethical considerations and potential biases that may arise when sighted researchers engage with visually impaired communities. These nuances should be carefully considered to ensure a clear understanding of the intent behind the recommendations.

Conclusion

This article explores the significance of establishing mutual understanding between researchers and blind subjects during interviews. Such understanding is more readily achieved when the interviewer is blind, as they are attuned to the challenges and needs of blind participants. Blind interviewers are better positioned to determine effective recruitment methods, develop accessible invitation letters, and design accessible consent forms. Additionally, blind interviewers use auditory cues to interact with blind interviewees and employ appropriate terminology for this group.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

I extend my heartfelt gratitude to the scholars in media and disability studies who generously shared their valuable insights, enriching this research. I also wish to thank the reviewers for their thoughtful feedback and contributions, which greatly enhanced the quality of this work.

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 iD

Ibrahim Emara

Notes

References

Ahmed

D. A. A.

Hundt

G. L.

Blackburn

(2011). Issues of gender, reflexivity and positionality in the field of disability: Researching visual impairment in an Arab society. Qualitative Social Work, 10(4), 467–484. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325010370188

Ahmed

Hoyle

Connelly

Crandall

Kapadia

(2015). Privacy concerns and behaviors of people with visual impairments. In Proceedings of the 33rd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 3523–3532). https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702334

Aishwarya

(2022). Performing qualitative data analysis as a blind researcher: Challenges, workarounds and design recommendations. In Proceedings of the 24th International ACM Sigaccess conference on computers and accessibility. pp. 1–4.

Akamoglu

Meadan

Pearson

J. N.

Cummings

(2018). Getting connected: Speech and language pathologists’ perceptions of building rapport via telepractice. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 30(4), 569–585. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10882-018-9603-3

Alkhathlan

Tlachac

M. L.

Harrison

Rundensteiner

(2021). “Honestly I never really thought about adding a description”: Why highly engaged tweets are inaccessible. Human-Computer Interaction – INTERACT, 2021, 373–395.

American Council for the Blind . (n.d.). Large print guidelines. https://www.acb.org/large-print-guidelines

Andrews

(2005). Wheeling uphill? Reflections of practical and methodological difficulties encountered in researching the experiences of disabled volunteers. Disability & Society, 20(2), 201–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687590500059341

Arndt

(2011). Conducting interviews with people who are deafblind: Issues in recording and transcription. Field Methods, 23(2), 204–214. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X10383395

Bam

Ronnie

(2020). Inclusion at the workplace: An exploratory study of people with disabilities in South Africa. International Journal of Disability Management Research, 15. https://doi.org/10.1017/idm.2020.5

10.

Barnes

(2019). Understanding the social model of disability: Past, present and future. In Watson

Roulstone

Thomas

(Eds.), Routledge handbook of disability studies (pp. 14–31). Routledge.

11.

Barton

(2005). Emancipatory research and disabled people: Some observations and questions. Educational Review, 57(3), 317–327. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131910500149325

12.

Beazley

Moore

Benzie

(1997). Involving disabled people in research: A study of inclusion in environmental activities. In Barnes

Mercer

(Eds.), Doing disability research (pp. 142–157). Disability Press.

13.

Bickford

J. O.

(2004). Preferences of individuals with visual impairments for the use of person-first language. RE, 36(3), 120–126. https://doi.org/10.3200/REVU.36.3.120-126

14.

Bolt

(2005). From blindness to visual impairment: Terminological typology and the social model of disability. Disability & Society, 20(5), 539–552. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687590500156246

15.

Bolt

(2012). Community, controversy, and compromise: The language of visual impairment. In McPherron

Ramanathan

(Eds.), Language, body, and health (pp. 15–36). De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781934078204.15

16.

Borodin

Bigham

J. P.

Dausch

Ramakrishnan

I. V.

(2010). More than meets the eye: A survey of screen-reader browsing strategies. In Proceedings of the 2010 International cross disciplinary conference on web accessibility (W4A) (pp. 1–10). https://doi.org/10.1145/1805986.1806005

17.

Brown

Boardman

F. K.

(2011). Accessing the field: Disability and the research process. Social Science & Medicine, 72(1), 23–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.09.050

18.

Brylla

(2017). A spectatorship-based approach to undoing blindness stereotypes in documentary practice [Doctoral dissertation. Goldsmiths, University of London].

19.

Bulk

L. Y.

(2020). Being blind and belonging in academia. (Doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia).

20.

Buzzi

M. C.

Buzzi

Leporini

(2011). Web 2.0: Twitter and the blind. In Proceedings of the 9th ACM SIGCHI Italian chapter international conference on computer-human interaction: Facing complexity (pp. 151–156). ACM.

21.

Buzzi

M. C.

Buzzi

Leporini

Akhter

(2010). Is Facebook really “open” to all? In 2010 IEEE International symposium on technology and society (pp. 327–336). IEEE.

22.

Carrillo

G. F.

(2018). Empowering blind creators: How can 3D haptic interfaces be used as creative tools for blind designers & developers. [Master's thesis]. Eindhoven University of Technology.

23.

Chamberlain

M. N.

(2019). Self-confidence levels in sequential learning versus structured discovery cane travel, post orientation and mobility instruction: A comparison study [doctoral dissertation. University of Portland].

24.

Chaudhry

(2018). Knowing through tripping: A performative praxis for co-constructing knowledge as a disabled halfie. Qualitative Inquiry, 24(1), 70–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800417728961

25.

Chavis

D. M.

Hogge

J. H.

McMillan

D. W.

Wandersman

(1986). Sense of community through Brunswik’s lens: A first look. Journal of Community Psychology, 14(1), 24–40.

26.

Chhabra

(2020). Insider, outsider or an in-betweener? Epistemological reflections of a legally blind researcher on conducting cross-national disability research. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 22(1), 307–317. https://doi.org/10.16993/sjdr.696

27.

Collier

McGhie-Richmond

Self

(2010). Exploring communication assistants as an option for increasing communication access to communities for people who use augmentative communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 26(1), 48–59. https://doi.org/10.3109/07434610903561498

28.

Cramer

J. M.

Steinbach

(2021). Conducting interviews with elderly Deaf people: Opportunities and challenges. In Pfau

Göksel

Hosemann

(Eds.), Our lives–our stories: Life experiences of elderly Deaf people (pp. 14–19). Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG.

29.

Crudden

McDonnall

Hierholzer

(2015). Transportation: An electronic survey of persons who are blind or visually impaired. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 109(6), 445–456. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X1510900603

30.

Das

Piper

A. M.

Gergle

(2022). Design and evaluation of accessible collaborative writing techniques for people with vision impairments. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 29(2). Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1145/3480169

31.

De Leeuw

Hox

Kef

(2003). Computer-assisted self-interviewing tailored for special populations and topics. Field Methods, 15(3), 223–251. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X03254714

32.

Della Líbera

Jurberg

(2017). Teenagers with visual impairment and new media: A world without barriers. The British Journal of Visual Impairment, 35(3), 247–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/0264619617711732

33.

Demirci

M. E.

(2021). The blind in history and society: Wisdom vs. despair. Self-published.

34.

Duckett

P. S.

Pratt

(2001). The researched opinions on research: Visually impaired people and visual impairment research. Disability & Society, 16(6), 815–835. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687590120083976

35.

Dwyer

S. C.

Buckle

J. L.

(2009). The space between: On being an insider-outsider in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(1), 54–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690900800105

36.

Eichel

V. J.

(1978). Mannerisms of the blind: A review of the literature. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 72(4), 125–130.

37.

Ellis

Adams

T. E.

Bochner

A. P.

(2011). Autoethnography: An overview. In Historical Social Research. 36, pp. 273–290.

38.

Emara

I. H.

(2022a). I do not know what is in your newspaper: Content analysis of American Braille magazines. In Cardoso

C. R.

Holmes

(Eds.), Transforming Magazines: Rethinking the Medium in the Digital Age (pp. 120–140). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

39.

Emara

I. H.

(2022b). The publishing of braille magazines in Egypt: Challenges and opportunities. Journal of Magazine Media, 23(1), 41–64. https://doi.org/10.1353/jmm.2022.a902856

40.

Emara

(2023). Evaluation of Qualitative Data Analysis Software by a Visually Impaired Researcher: An Autoethnographic Study. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 22, 16094069231214390. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069231214390

41.

Emara

I. H.

(2024). Knocking on doors: The use of blogging sites by visually impaired people in the USA preliminary study. Convergence, 13548565241261963. https://doi.org/10.1177/13548565241261963

42.

Emara

I. H.

Haller

B. A.

(2024). “It’s weird for the people who aren’t used to it. And I want to make it less weird”: Blindness community bloggers as legitimate voices of their lived experiences. New Media & Society, 14614448241229424. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448241229424

43.

Fryer

(2013). Putting it into words: The impact of visual impairment on perception, experience and presence [Doctoral thesis. University of London].

44.

Gailey

J. A.

Prohaska

(2011). Power and gender negotiations during interviews with men about sex and sexually degrading practices. Qualitative Research, 11(4), 365–380. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794111417663

45.

Garton

Copland

(2010). I like this interview; I get cakes and cats!’: The effect of prior relationships on interview talk. Qualitative Research, 10(5), 533–551. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794110372784

46.

Glenk

L. M.

Přibylová

Stetina

B. U.

Demirel

Weissenbacher

(2019). Perceptions on health benefits of guide dog ownership in an Austrian population of blind people with and without a guide dog. Animals, 9(7), 428. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9070428

47.

Goharrizi

Z. E.

(2010). Blindness and initiating communication [Master’s thesis, University of Oslo]. University of Oslo.

48.

Gold

Shaw

Wolffe

(2010). The social lives of Canadian youths with visual impairments. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 104(7), 431–443. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X1010400706

49.

Grenier

A. M.

(2007). Crossing age and generational boundaries: Exploring intergenerational research encounters. Journal of Social Issues, 63(4), 713–727. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2007.00545.x

50.

Hahn

H. D.

Belt

T. L.

(2004). Disability identity and attitudes toward cure in a sample of disabled activists. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 45(4), 453–464. https://doi.org/10.1177/002214650404500407

51.

Hammer

(2013). “This is the anthropologist, and she is sighted”: Ethnographic research with blind women. Disability Studies Quarterly, 33(2). https://doi.org/10.18061/dsq.v33i2.3707

52.

Harris

Roberts

(2003). Challenging barriers to participation in qualitative research: Involving disabled refugees. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 2(2), 14–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690300200202

53.

Hill

Bennett

Hunter

(2022). ‘It’s social interaction. . . but it’s not’: A qualitative study investigating the psycho-social experience of social media by individuals with a visual impairment. Journal of Health Psychology, 27(5), 1070–1083. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105321995949

54.

Huff

E. W.

Gluck

Boateng

Brinkley

(2021). The daily experiences of Facebook for visually impaired users. In Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting (pp. 221–225). https://doi.org/10.1177/1071181321651226

55.

Hughes

(1999). The constitution of impairment: Modernity and the aesthetic of oppression. Disability & Society, 14(2), 155–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599926244

56.

Iacono

(2006). Ethical challenges and complexities of including people with intellectual disability as participants in research. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 31(3), 173–179. https://doi.org/10.1080/13668250600876392

57.

Kanuha

V. K.

(2000). “Being” native versus “going native”: Conducting social work research as an insider. Social Work, 45(5), 439–447.

58.

Kim

H. N.

(2024). Guidance for best practices in participatory design involving people with visual impairment. Ergonomics in Design, 32(2), 48–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/10648046211058248

59.

Kitchin

(2000). The researched opinions on research: Disabled people and disability research. Disability & Society, 15(1), 25–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687590025757

60.

Kolli

C. S.

Krishna Reddy

V. V.

Kavitha

(2020). A critical review on Internet of Things to empower the living style of physically challenged people. In Emerging research in data engineering systems and computer communications: Proceedings of CCODE 2019. pp. 603–614.

61.

Kumar

S. R.

Sonkar

Chandavarkar

B. R.

(2021). Ways of connecting illiterates with the security mechanism: Case study. In Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on communications and cyber physical engineering (pp. 151–161): Springer.

62.

Kvam

M. H.

(2005). Experiences of childhood sexual abuse among visually impaired adults in Norway: Prevalence and characteristics. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 99(1), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X0509900102

63.

Lee

Jang

Hong

K. H.

(2014). A comparison of the listening speed of the Korean TTS for the blind: Based on their screen reader experiences. In Proceedings of the international conference on computers for handicapped persons (pp. 49–52). Springer.

64.

Ligali

T. O.

(2020). Prevalence of dental trauma and malocclusion among institutionalised visually impaired adolescents who have dental caries in Lagos, Nigeria. Journal of Paediatric Dental Research and Practice, 1(1-2), 22–27.

65.

Longmore

P. K.

(2015). Telethons: Spectacle, disability, and the business of charity. Oxford University Press.

66.

Menzies

Gorman

B. M.

Tigwell

G. W.

(2020). Reflections on using chat-based platforms for online interviews with screen-reader users. In Proceedings of the 22nd international ACM SIGACCESS conference on computers and accessibility (pp. 1–4). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3373625.3418000

67.

Mohler

Rudman

(2022). Negotiating the insider/outsider researcher position within qualitative disability studies research. Qualitative Report, 27(6), 1511–1521. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2022.5047

68.

Moore

L. W.

(2002). Conducting research with visually impaired older adults. Qualitative Health Research, 12(4), 559–565. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732302012004008

69.

Morris

(1991). Pride against prejudice: Transforming attitudes to disability. Women’s Press.

70.

Morris

M. R.

Zolyomi

Yao

Bahram

Bigham

J. P.

Kane

S. K.

(2016). “With most of it being pictures now, I rarely use it” Understanding Twitter ’s Evolving Accessibility to Blind Users. In In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 5506–5516). https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858116

71.

Oakley

(2016). Interviewing women again: Power, time and the gift. Sociology, 50(1), 195–213.

72.

O’Brien

McConkey

García-Iriarte

(2014). Co-researching with people who have intellectual disabilities: Insights from a national survey. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 27(1), 65–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/jar.12074

73.

Oliver

(2013). The social model of disability: Thirty years on. Disability & Society, 28(7), 1024–1026. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2013.818773

74.

Pan

C.-W.

Liu

Sun

H.-P.

(2015). Increased difficulties in managing stairs in visually impaired older adults: A community-based survey. PLoS One, 10(11), e0142516. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0142516

75.

Pommier

K. L.

(2008). Person-first language versus disability-first language: Perceptions of an individual's abilities [Doctoral dissertation]. Saint Xavier University.

76.

Prior

M. T.

(2018). Accomplishing “rapport” in qualitative research interviews: Empathic moments in interaction. Applied Linguistics Review, 9(4), 487–511. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2017-0029

77.

Qiu

Rauterberg

(2015). Nonverbal signals for face-to-face communication between the blind and the sighted. In Proceedings of the international conference on enabling access for persons with visual impairment. pp. 157–165.

78.

Quainoo

M. A.

Serwornoo

M. Y. W.

Hammond

(2023). Facebook experiences of visually impaired students: A deconstruction of the challenges and benefits. The British Journal of Visual Impairment, 41(2), 400–413. https://doi.org/10.1177/02646196211047731

79.

Ramos

P. L.

Santana

Moreno

L. H.

Marques

A. P.

Freitas

Rocha-Sousa

Macedo

A. F.

(2018). Predicting participation of people with impaired vision in epidemiological studies. BMC Ophthalmology, 18(1), 236. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-018-0889-9

80.

Rojas Pernia

Haya Salmón

(2021). Inclusive research, learning disabilities, and inquiry and reflection as training tools: A study on experiences from Spain. Disability & Society, 36(6), 978–998. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2020.1779038

81.

Russomanno

O’Modhrain

Gillespie

R. B.

Rodger

M. W. M.

(2015). Refreshing refreshable Braille displays. IEEE Transactions on Haptics, 8(3), 287–297. https://doi.org/10.1109/TOH.2015.2423492

82.

Sacks

S. Z.

Hannan

C. K.

Erin

J. N.

(2011). Children’s perceptions of learning Braille: Qualitative and quantitative findings of the ABC Braille study. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 105(5), 266–275. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X1110500504

83.

Schalk

(2016). Reevaluating the supercrip. Journal of Literary & Cultural Disability Studies, 10(1), 71–86. https://doi.org/10.3828/jlcds.2016.5

84.

Schillmeier

(2008). (Visual) disability–from exclusive perspectives to inclusive differences. Disability & Society, 23(6), 611–623. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687590802328493

85.

Seymour

(2007). Exhuming the body: Revisiting the role of the visible body in ethnographic research. Qualitative Health Research, 17(9), 1188–1197. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732307308517

86.

Shakespeare

(1996). Rules of engagement: Doing disability research. Disability & Society, 11(1), 115–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599650023380

87.

Sheffield

R. M.

D’Andrea

F. M.

Morash

Chatfield

(2022). How many braille readers? Policy, politics, and perception. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 116(1), 14–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X211071125

88.

Stearns

Jou

Findlater

Ross

D. A.

Froehlich

J. E.

(2016). Evaluating haptic and auditory directional guidance to assist blind people in reading printed text using finger-mounted cameras. ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing (TACCESS), 9(1), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1145/2881455

89.

Stevens

(2003). Assisting the blind and visually impaired: Guidelines for eye health workers and other helpers. Community Eye Health, 16(45), 7–9.

90.

Stineman

M. G.

Musick

D. W.

(2001). Protection of human subjects with disability: Guidelines for research. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 82, S9–S14.

91.

Stone

Priestley

(1996). Parasites, pawns and partners: Disability research and the role of non-disabled researchers. The British Journal of Sociology, 47(4), 699–716. https://doi.org/10.2307/591081

92.

Teachman

McDonough

Macarthur

Gibson

B. E.

(2018). A critical dialogical methodology for conducting research with disabled youth who use augmentative and alternative communication. Qualitative Inquiry, 24(1), 35–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800417727763

93.

Tjostheim

Solheim

Fuglerud

K. S.

(2011). The importance of peers for visually impaired users of social media. In Proceedings of the 6th IASTED international conference on human-computer interaction (pp. 23–30). https://doi.org/10.2316/P.2011.747-015

94.

Tobin

M. J.

Hill

E. W.

(2015). Is literacy for blind people under threat? Does braille have a future? The British Journal of Visual Impairment, 33(3), 239–250. https://doi.org/10.1177/0264619615591866

95.

Tregaskis

(2004). Constructions of disability: Researching the interface between disabled and non-disabled people. Psychology Press.

96.

Trujillo Tanner

Caserta

M. S.

Kleinschmidt

J. J.

Clayton

M. S.

Bernstein

P. S.

Guo

J. W.

(2018). Conducting research with older adults with vision impairment: Lessons learned and recommended best practices. Gerontology and Geriatric Medicine, 4, 2333721418812624. https://doi.org/10.1177/2333721418812624

97.

Widdicombe

(2015). Just like the fact that I'm Syrian like you are Scottish’: Ascribing interviewer identities as a resource in cross-cultural interaction. British Journal of Social Psychology, 54(2), 255–272. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12072

98.

Wild

T. A.

Kelly

S. M.

Blackburn

M. V.

Ryan

C. L.

(2014). Adults with visual impairments report on their sex education experiences. Journal of Blindness Innovation & Research, 4(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/0264619615571138

99.

World Health Organization . (2023). Blindness and vision impairment. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/blindness-and-visual-impairment