{"id":658,"date":"2026-05-06T21:09:36","date_gmt":"2026-05-07T01:09:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/lostintranslation\/?post_type=chapter&p=658"},"modified":"2026-05-06T23:19:57","modified_gmt":"2026-05-07T03:19:57","slug":"3-data-collection-process","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/lostintranslation\/chapter\/3-data-collection-process\/","title":{"raw":"3.3 Data Collection Process","rendered":"3.3 Data Collection Process"},"content":{"raw":"

3.3 Data Collection Process<\/h2>\r\nThe research for this project consists of two phases: 1) semi-structured interview co-design sessions with post-secondary students and 2) an anonymous survey of post-secondary employees. Qualitative methods are considered particularly useful when there is little existing research on a topic (Draper, 2004). As there is limited research about the experiences of disabled students with digital learning materials, qualitative methods may be useful to unearth fresh perspectives and insights. The initial intention for phase 2 was to interview post-secondary employees. However, as noted in section 3.2.3, the decision to switch to a survey was made given the tumultuous nature of the sector and precarity of employment at Langara College during the period the research was conducted.\r\n\r\n\u2018Big data\u2019 is useful for exposing areas to investigate, revealing patterns, and identifying outliers (Holmes, 2018). For this project, a broad survey that obtained potentially hundreds of responses could be useful to understand how many students experienced difficulties accessing and using digital learning material. However, big data of that nature would not illuminate disability, the complexities of assistive technology, or the nuance of specific file formats. By focusing on individuals and their contexts, this research seeks to prompt thick descriptions. Such detailed data considers the context, emotions, and behaviours contributing to an interaction (Ponterotto, 2006). Where qualitative research produces sufficiently thick descriptions of user experiences, \u201cthe reader experiences a sense of verisimilitude as they read the researcher\u2019s account\u201d (p. 542). As this work intends to prompt action based on empathy instead of the threat of legal enforcement, such descriptions are the intention. As such, this research sets out to capture deep responses as opposed to a great number of responses.\r\n

3.3.1 Phase 1<\/h3>\r\nIn the first phase of the research, five students participated in semi-structured co-design sessions. Semi-structured interviews afford collaborators the space to explore their own ideas while maintaining consistency between sessions (IDRC, 2023b). This freedom to explore is essential to gaining a deep understanding of issues and how issues affect diverse perspectives (IDRC, 2023b). Three sessions were conducted in person in a private meeting room at Langara College and two occurred remotely via Zoom. The shortest session was 50 minutes and the longest session lasted 95 minutes. The average length of all sessions was 73 minutes. The audio recordings of each session were transcribed using Microsoft Word\u2019s Transcribe tool and verified by the Graduate Student Researcher. Field notes and artifacts generated during the session were scanned and stored on the Graduate Student Researcher\u2019s OCADU OneDrive with the originals immediately shredded. The intention of these sessions was to discuss barriers the students encountered with digital learning material and co-design a resource to present the student experience to Langara College employees.\r\n

Phase 1 Instrument<\/h4>\r\nThe phase 1 semi-structured interviews drew from a pool of questions and activities to spur discussion (Appendix C<\/a>). This approach allowed for the conversation to remain centered on the student\u2019s lived experience while ensuring some consistency between sessions. As the sessions progressed, obvious themes and related experiences became apparent. This ultimately led to a small sample of saturated data. While each co-designer had their own experience with digital learning material and encountered unique barriers, the overarching trends revealed consistent and obvious areas in need of improvement.\r\n\r\nThe Graduate Student Researcher\u2019s previous interactions with 4 of 5 co-designers created a safe environment for students to be honest and expressive without fear of retribution or judgement. The Graduate Student Researcher was careful to remind co-designers that they could remain anonymous if they wished and that the researcher\u2019s dual role (Assistive Technologist at Langara College) had no impact on their academic standing or future support (relevant to the 2 co-designers that were Langara students at the time of the session). As the Graduate Student Researcher had previously aided students with digital learning material, there was a possibility of bias; students were ready and prepared to discuss inaccessible content and barriers they had faced which could exclude positive experiences. However, most students mentioned positive experiences as well. The existing rapport between Graduate Student Researcher (as Langara\u2019s Assistive Technologist) and students likely contributed to the students feeling the researcher was working for their benefit, even if they were to mention something they disliked about Langara College. This trust is emphasized in the findings of the research.\r\n

3.3.2 Phase 2<\/h3>\r\nThe results of phase 1 were analysed and coded (discussed below) then published in an open education resource on BCcampus Pressbooks. Lost in Translation: Co-designed Approaches to Implement Digital Accessibility Initiatives<\/em><\/a> was then shown to Langara employees at an open house event for review, reflection, and to invite them to complete an anonymous survey.\r\n

Phase 2 Instrument<\/h4>\r\nLangara employees that viewed the co-design resource (Lost in Translation: Co-designed Approaches to Implement Digital Accessibility Initiatives<\/em><\/a>) were invited to complete an anonymous survey asking for their thoughts on the resource and how it might impact their intentions and praxis regarding accessible digital learning material. The survey included four Likert scale questions, one multi-select, and three optional text fields. Refer to Appendix B<\/a> for a copy of the survey.","rendered":"

3.3 Data Collection Process<\/h2>\n

The research for this project consists of two phases: 1) semi-structured interview co-design sessions with post-secondary students and 2) an anonymous survey of post-secondary employees. Qualitative methods are considered particularly useful when there is little existing research on a topic (Draper, 2004). As there is limited research about the experiences of disabled students with digital learning materials, qualitative methods may be useful to unearth fresh perspectives and insights. The initial intention for phase 2 was to interview post-secondary employees. However, as noted in section 3.2.3, the decision to switch to a survey was made given the tumultuous nature of the sector and precarity of employment at Langara College during the period the research was conducted.<\/p>\n

\u2018Big data\u2019 is useful for exposing areas to investigate, revealing patterns, and identifying outliers (Holmes, 2018). For this project, a broad survey that obtained potentially hundreds of responses could be useful to understand how many students experienced difficulties accessing and using digital learning material. However, big data of that nature would not illuminate disability, the complexities of assistive technology, or the nuance of specific file formats. By focusing on individuals and their contexts, this research seeks to prompt thick descriptions. Such detailed data considers the context, emotions, and behaviours contributing to an interaction (Ponterotto, 2006). Where qualitative research produces sufficiently thick descriptions of user experiences, \u201cthe reader experiences a sense of verisimilitude as they read the researcher\u2019s account\u201d (p. 542). As this work intends to prompt action based on empathy instead of the threat of legal enforcement, such descriptions are the intention. As such, this research sets out to capture deep responses as opposed to a great number of responses.<\/p>\n

3.3.1 Phase 1<\/h3>\n

In the first phase of the research, five students participated in semi-structured co-design sessions. Semi-structured interviews afford collaborators the space to explore their own ideas while maintaining consistency between sessions (IDRC, 2023b). This freedom to explore is essential to gaining a deep understanding of issues and how issues affect diverse perspectives (IDRC, 2023b). Three sessions were conducted in person in a private meeting room at Langara College and two occurred remotely via Zoom. The shortest session was 50 minutes and the longest session lasted 95 minutes. The average length of all sessions was 73 minutes. The audio recordings of each session were transcribed using Microsoft Word\u2019s Transcribe tool and verified by the Graduate Student Researcher. Field notes and artifacts generated during the session were scanned and stored on the Graduate Student Researcher\u2019s OCADU OneDrive with the originals immediately shredded. The intention of these sessions was to discuss barriers the students encountered with digital learning material and co-design a resource to present the student experience to Langara College employees.<\/p>\n

Phase 1 Instrument<\/h4>\n

The phase 1 semi-structured interviews drew from a pool of questions and activities to spur discussion (Appendix C<\/a>). This approach allowed for the conversation to remain centered on the student\u2019s lived experience while ensuring some consistency between sessions. As the sessions progressed, obvious themes and related experiences became apparent. This ultimately led to a small sample of saturated data. While each co-designer had their own experience with digital learning material and encountered unique barriers, the overarching trends revealed consistent and obvious areas in need of improvement.<\/p>\n

The Graduate Student Researcher\u2019s previous interactions with 4 of 5 co-designers created a safe environment for students to be honest and expressive without fear of retribution or judgement. The Graduate Student Researcher was careful to remind co-designers that they could remain anonymous if they wished and that the researcher\u2019s dual role (Assistive Technologist at Langara College) had no impact on their academic standing or future support (relevant to the 2 co-designers that were Langara students at the time of the session). As the Graduate Student Researcher had previously aided students with digital learning material, there was a possibility of bias; students were ready and prepared to discuss inaccessible content and barriers they had faced which could exclude positive experiences. However, most students mentioned positive experiences as well. The existing rapport between Graduate Student Researcher (as Langara\u2019s Assistive Technologist) and students likely contributed to the students feeling the researcher was working for their benefit, even if they were to mention something they disliked about Langara College. This trust is emphasized in the findings of the research.<\/p>\n

3.3.2 Phase 2<\/h3>\n

The results of phase 1 were analysed and coded (discussed below) then published in an open education resource on BCcampus Pressbooks. Lost in Translation: Co-designed Approaches to Implement Digital Accessibility Initiatives<\/em><\/a> was then shown to Langara employees at an open house event for review, reflection, and to invite them to complete an anonymous survey.<\/p>\n

Phase 2 Instrument<\/h4>\n

Langara employees that viewed the co-design resource (Lost in Translation: Co-designed Approaches to Implement Digital Accessibility Initiatives<\/em><\/a>) were invited to complete an anonymous survey asking for their thoughts on the resource and how it might impact their intentions and praxis regarding accessible digital learning material. The survey included four Likert scale questions, one multi-select, and three optional text fields. Refer to Appendix B<\/a> for a copy of the survey.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1655,"menu_order":8,"template":"","meta":{"pb_show_title":"","pb_short_title":"","pb_subtitle":"","pb_authors":[],"pb_section_license":""},"chapter-type":[],"contributor":[],"license":[],"class_list":["post-658","chapter","type-chapter","status-publish","hentry"],"part":586,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/lostintranslation\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/658","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/lostintranslation\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/lostintranslation\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/chapter"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/lostintranslation\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1655"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/lostintranslation\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/658\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":748,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/lostintranslation\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/658\/revisions\/748"}],"part":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/lostintranslation\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/parts\/586"}],"metadata":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/lostintranslation\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/658\/metadata\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/lostintranslation\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=658"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"chapter-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/lostintranslation\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapter-type?post=658"},{"taxonomy":"contributor","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/lostintranslation\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/contributor?post=658"},{"taxonomy":"license","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/lostintranslation\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/license?post=658"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}