Report workshop ‘Insidersperspective’, with Prof. S.Gabel,
hosted by SIHO (Meggie Verstichele)
Monday 5th December, Plantijn Hogeschool, Antwerp
List of participants:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Claus Stephanie
De Ridder Isabelle
Lesire Leen
Mille Caroline
Plasschaert Lien
Ruolyte Ruta
Tops Liesje
De Witte Liefke
Universiteit Gent
VLOR
Plantijn Hogeschool Antwerpen
Student Universiteit Antwerpen
CVO Provincie Antwerpen
Vytautas Magnus University, Lithouwen
Karel de Grote-Hogeschool Antwerpen
SIHO
Participants introduce themselves, their work and their expectations of the workshop.
Susan Gabel introduces herself and gives further input on the workshop, with a powerpoint.
The tenets of disability studies in education
 Tenets: Contextualize disability within political and social spheres.
 Privilege the interests, agendas, and voices of people with disabilities. Susan Gabel linked it
with the privileges of women voices.
 Promote social justice, equitable and inclusive educational opportunities, and full and
meaningful access to all aspects of society for people with disabilities.
 Assume competence and reject deficit models of disability.
In Disability Studies we don’t make assumptions that people are not competent. We assume
that they are competent. We reject deficit models: models that think of disability as
resigning in a person, for example the medical model, where the solution is at fixing that
person. We reject is because it is imposed to people, rather than that the solutions are in the
environment, pedagogy of the teachers, architecture of buildings.
Guidelines for research in DSE
 Scholars with disabilities and non-disabled scholars work together. Lived experiences of the
people forms the design.
 Recognize and privilege the knowledge derived from the lived experience of people with
disabilities. We can’t come to those data with an open mind. We use the knowledge we
know already, from a Disability Studies perspective, to do better research.
 Whenever possible adhere to an emancipatory stance. For example, working with people
with disabilities as informed participants or co-researchers, not ‘subjects’. They should be at
the very least participants.
 Welcome intradisciplinary approaches to understanding the phenomenon of disability, e.g.
multiple research approaches. For example, surveys can be useful as one tool, but perhaps
not as the only one.
 Challenge research methodology that objectifies, marginalizes, and oppresses people with
disabilities. It is important to think about the way it represents people.
 Cultivate interdisciplinary approaches to understanding the phenomenon of disability, e.g.
interfacing with multicultural education, the humanities, social sciences, philosophy, cultural
studies, etc. Philosophers for example have done some amazing things.
Lessons learned
 Disability identity is fluid.
None of us have a stable identity. Our identity is always flux. Disability is not always the
identity. Susan Gable gives an example of a student she met when she just worked at the
university. When he needed the adjustments, then he was ‘her disabled student’, but when
he talked about wanting to be a teacher and how he would do that, disability didn’t come to
the front. If you find discrepancies in your data, that’s why. People with disabilities will
disclose sometimes and not other times. It depends, for example if disclosure means they
get what they need.
 Avoid literal translation when working cross-culturally (e.g., learning disabled).
 Use participants’ native language when possible.
If you have students who study here in Flanders from other countries, from a non-Flemish
speaking country, interview in native language. Be careful with translations.
 Question basic concepts used by participants (e.g., normal).
‘I would never want to have a normal life’. Can you tell me what you mean by normal? What
is a normal life? We are only guessing if we don’t ask further. We often except concepts as
we understand them, but if we want to have good analysis, we should ask further
Susan Gabel asked the group if they know other basic concepts used by participants.
Some concepts we discussed:
-
Students with disability just want to be ‘regular, normal students’. What do students
mean by that? We have to ask further questions.
-
Dividing people with disabilities in a hierarchy.
-
Hidden disability and visibility and invisibility.
 Conduct more than one analysis (e.g., thematic, theoretical).
We first have to do a thematic analysis. It is important that we do that. But it is useful to do a
second, theoretical analysis that goes deeper than a thematical analysis.
Susan Gabel gives an example of her research: In her first thematical analysis, she found all
the concepts and ideas you would expect: being angry about adjustments, hidden
disabilities,… So they know what people were saying, but there was something missing. They
went back to theory and did an analysis of the discourse. They used one theoretical
framework. They went back to the data and reading it with that framework. Susan Gabel
learned that the second analysis is important. In the second analysis, you can bring in a
professor, or a doctoral student.
What is a theoretical analysis?
A theoretical analysis is taking a specific analysis, for example using the theory of Foucault:
Language, discourse, the way we make meaning in our environment. Discourse changes or
creates the social, political, economic,..You then start seeing things you didn’t see during the
first analysis.
We look at the extrait that is on the slide: a professor says that the student will be fine. Susan
Gabel: ‘ It is social, it is not about the people, it is about the discourse, about the culture. The
whole institution is trying to contain disability. ‘You’ll be fine’. That is the containment
process. If you could see all the extracts you would see it even more. When we looked at the
first analysis we would say we need to talk to the teachers. But during the second analysis we
it is not about those teachers, it is about the discourse of the university, a much bigger
problem to solve. If we went to those teachers, it wouldn’t solve the problem. It is about the
whole institutions.
Be clear about unit of analysis (e.g., individual, group, micro-, macro-, etc.).
Are we studying individuals, groups of disabilities, or are we looking at a university level?
It is important because if we only talk about individuals, we look at it from a medical model
perspective. There are some tensions with insiders perspective, because we talk to
individuals. How do we walk that balance line, reminding ourselves and our readers, these
people all share an identity and are influenced if not created by certain factors.
Focus groups with peoples with complex lives and who don’t know each other are difficult.
Focus groups can work with people who know each other. It is difficult with people who
don’t know each other because people are not use to disclose. They also have the tendency
to conform to what others say or react.
 A thorough literature review is essential prior to data gathering/analysis.
 Context is essential.
 Social
 Political
 Historic
 Economic
Questions to ask:
 How can I avoid reproducing medical model discourses?
The Flemish context: Most institutions want to give accommodations with disabilities on the
conditions that they disclose. And we want to evaluate that the condition is real. This is a
strict medical model. Students need to prove with medical documents that they have a
disability.
Susan Gabel: Internationally the medical model is more and more criticized. The UN world
report on disability is based on the social model: disability is an interaction between the
person and the institution. That is why the UDL-approach is so good.
 How can I understand and articulate the complexities of my participants’ lives in context?
When students come to your desk, just ask them what they need, do not assume that you
know.
 What are the things in the data that bump up against each other? Where are the
dissonances?