{"id":586,"date":"2026-05-06T14:43:50","date_gmt":"2026-05-06T18:43:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/lostintranslation\/?post_type=part&p=586"},"modified":"2026-05-06T21:01:37","modified_gmt":"2026-05-07T01:01:37","slug":"method","status":"publish","type":"part","link":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/lostintranslation\/part\/method\/","title":{"raw":"3 Method","rendered":"3 Method"},"content":{"raw":"The study of disability, as with the study of any marginalized group, requires deliberate care. Research can be exploitive and extractive; historically disabled people have \u201cbeen the objects of study but not the purveyors of the knowledge base of disability\u201d (Snyder & Mitchell, p. 198, 2006). Disability research has ranged from being merely \u201cirrelevant . . . and as failing to improve [disabled people\u2019s] material circumstances and quality of life\u201d to resembling a \u2018rape model\u2019 of research in which researchers extract findings and move on to their next project while disabled subjects experience no meaningful change (Oliver, 1992, p. 105). Costanza-Chock (2020) argues that even collaborative research can be extractive when researchers obtain input from users who often do not receive any benefit. Historically, able-bodied researchers have extorted insights from disabled people\u2019s experiences to advance the researchers\u2019 career and status, while disabled participants lives are left unchanged (Heng, 2019). When research is conducted in this manner, disabled people may consider research \u201cas part of the problem rather than as part of the solution (Oliver, 1992, p. 105). While Charlton\u2019s maxim of \u2018nothing about us without us\u2019 calls for disabled people to be included, inclusion alone is not sufficient (1998). These previous harms are a central concern in shaping the methods of this project.\r\n\r\nAs with criticisms of disability research, Indigenous and decolonial scholars are particularly critical of traditional research methods. Decolonial methodology views traditional research methods as a conservative force intent on preserving the status quo (Denscombe, 2025). Many scholars note the extractive nature of traditional research methods where researchers appear, extract and appropriate knowledge, then leave (Kovach, 2010; Smith, 2012; Hayward et al., 2021). In Linda Tuhiwai Smith\u2019s words: \u201cresearchers enter communities armed with goodwill in their front pockets and patents in their back pockets, they bring medicine into villages and extract blood for genetic analysis\u201d (2012, p. 24). The seizure of Indigenous knowledge in traditional research methods has done irreparable harm to those communities (Tuck & Yang, 2013). More systematically, traditional research in colonial settings was not motivated by any intention of improving the lives of the studied and colonized, instead research was often used to improve methods of oppression (Denscombe, 2025). Storytelling, central to many Indigenous cultures, is emphasized in some Indigenous methodologies (Kovach, 2010; Kovach, 2018). In many types of research, it is important to note that the participants are experts in their own lived experience. As with many critical fields, Indigenous and decolonial methodologies emphasize the need for research to make positive change for the studied communities (Hayward et al., 2021; Denscombe, 2025). The harm of traditional research practices to marginalized, colonized, and racialized groups cannot be understated, nor can it be undone. Meaningful inclusion and engagement are key to creating new knowledge that is authentic, less extractive, and imparts positive change on the studied communities.\r\n\r\nTanya Titchkosky\u2019s (2011) The Question of Access<\/em> implores disability studies research to move beyond asking why society disables people to asking how<\/em> it does so. This shift, Titchkosky posits, is necessary to meaningfully improve disabled people\u2019s lives because explaining what is only reaffirms the status quo. Understanding how disability has been labelled problems is a significant factor in improving the lives of disabled people. Exploring how digital learning material excludes disabled students must be accompanied by an understanding of how post-secondary institutions exclude. Moving from why to how \u201cputs the identification of problems, the explanation of said problems, and the development of solutions on the same level\u201d (p. 17). The co-designers of this researcher project will identify the problems, while my experience in digital accessibility will explain said problems, with everyone (including post-secondary instructors and staff) contributing feasible solutions to the problems. The purpose of this work is not to document the ways in which and why post-secondary disables some students; the aim of this research is to understand specifically how inaccessible digital learning material disables some students and how to create more accessible and inclusive learning environments. To ensure this research is not extractive, the principles of inclusive design and collaborative design form the foundation of this work. Additionally, to ensure disabled students\u2019 experiences are improved by this, the action research model is employed to bring about tangible and meaningful change.","rendered":"

The study of disability, as with the study of any marginalized group, requires deliberate care. Research can be exploitive and extractive; historically disabled people have \u201cbeen the objects of study but not the purveyors of the knowledge base of disability\u201d (Snyder & Mitchell, p. 198, 2006). Disability research has ranged from being merely \u201cirrelevant . . . and as failing to improve [disabled people\u2019s] material circumstances and quality of life\u201d to resembling a \u2018rape model\u2019 of research in which researchers extract findings and move on to their next project while disabled subjects experience no meaningful change (Oliver, 1992, p. 105). Costanza-Chock (2020) argues that even collaborative research can be extractive when researchers obtain input from users who often do not receive any benefit. Historically, able-bodied researchers have extorted insights from disabled people\u2019s experiences to advance the researchers\u2019 career and status, while disabled participants lives are left unchanged (Heng, 2019). When research is conducted in this manner, disabled people may consider research \u201cas part of the problem rather than as part of the solution (Oliver, 1992, p. 105). While Charlton\u2019s maxim of \u2018nothing about us without us\u2019 calls for disabled people to be included, inclusion alone is not sufficient (1998). These previous harms are a central concern in shaping the methods of this project.<\/p>\n

As with criticisms of disability research, Indigenous and decolonial scholars are particularly critical of traditional research methods. Decolonial methodology views traditional research methods as a conservative force intent on preserving the status quo (Denscombe, 2025). Many scholars note the extractive nature of traditional research methods where researchers appear, extract and appropriate knowledge, then leave (Kovach, 2010; Smith, 2012; Hayward et al., 2021). In Linda Tuhiwai Smith\u2019s words: \u201cresearchers enter communities armed with goodwill in their front pockets and patents in their back pockets, they bring medicine into villages and extract blood for genetic analysis\u201d (2012, p. 24). The seizure of Indigenous knowledge in traditional research methods has done irreparable harm to those communities (Tuck & Yang, 2013). More systematically, traditional research in colonial settings was not motivated by any intention of improving the lives of the studied and colonized, instead research was often used to improve methods of oppression (Denscombe, 2025). Storytelling, central to many Indigenous cultures, is emphasized in some Indigenous methodologies (Kovach, 2010; Kovach, 2018). In many types of research, it is important to note that the participants are experts in their own lived experience. As with many critical fields, Indigenous and decolonial methodologies emphasize the need for research to make positive change for the studied communities (Hayward et al., 2021; Denscombe, 2025). The harm of traditional research practices to marginalized, colonized, and racialized groups cannot be understated, nor can it be undone. Meaningful inclusion and engagement are key to creating new knowledge that is authentic, less extractive, and imparts positive change on the studied communities.<\/p>\n

Tanya Titchkosky\u2019s (2011) The Question of Access<\/em> implores disability studies research to move beyond asking why society disables people to asking how<\/em> it does so. This shift, Titchkosky posits, is necessary to meaningfully improve disabled people\u2019s lives because explaining what is only reaffirms the status quo. Understanding how disability has been labelled problems is a significant factor in improving the lives of disabled people. Exploring how digital learning material excludes disabled students must be accompanied by an understanding of how post-secondary institutions exclude. Moving from why to how \u201cputs the identification of problems, the explanation of said problems, and the development of solutions on the same level\u201d (p. 17). The co-designers of this researcher project will identify the problems, while my experience in digital accessibility will explain said problems, with everyone (including post-secondary instructors and staff) contributing feasible solutions to the problems. The purpose of this work is not to document the ways in which and why post-secondary disables some students; the aim of this research is to understand specifically how inaccessible digital learning material disables some students and how to create more accessible and inclusive learning environments. To ensure this research is not extractive, the principles of inclusive design and collaborative design form the foundation of this work. Additionally, to ensure disabled students\u2019 experiences are improved by this, the action research model is employed to bring about tangible and meaningful change.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"parent":0,"menu_order":4,"template":"","meta":{"pb_part_invisible":false,"pb_part_invisible_string":""},"contributor":[],"license":[],"class_list":["post-586","part","type-part","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/lostintranslation\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/parts\/586","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/lostintranslation\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/parts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/lostintranslation\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/part"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/lostintranslation\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/parts\/586\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":651,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/lostintranslation\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/parts\/586\/revisions\/651"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/lostintranslation\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=586"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"contributor","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/lostintranslation\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/contributor?post=586"},{"taxonomy":"license","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/lostintranslation\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/license?post=586"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}