Life-Lines of spanish students with disabilities during their university trajectory

The Qualitative Report Volume 23 |Number 5 Article 7 5-18-2018 Life-Lines of Spanish Students with Disabilities during their University Trajectory Noelia Melero University of Seville Anabel Moriña University of Seville, [email protected] Rosario López-Aguilar University of Seville Follow this and additional works at: https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr Part of the Accessibility Commons,Curriculum and Instruction Commons, and the Special Education and Teaching Commons This Article has supplementary content. View the full record on NSUWorks here: https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol23/iss5/7 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the The Qualitative Report at NSUWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Qualitative Report by an authorized administrator of NSUWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Recommended APA Citation Melero, N., Moriña, A., & López-Aguilar, R. (2018). Life-Lines of Spanish Students with Disabilities during their University Trajectory. The Qualitative Report,23(5), 1127-1145. Retrieved from https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol23/iss5/7 Life-Lines of Spanish Students with Disabilities during their University Trajectory Abstract The authors conducted this study at a Spanish university to find out what barriers and aids students with disabilities identified during their university trajectories. The authors used a biographical narrative method, and specifically, life histories. Our analysis concentrated on the life-lines and interviews, showing the histories of three students with disabilities. We analyzed data through a narrative system, approaching each life history separately and making a global analysis of it. The results section presents the university trajectory of three students with disability, Javier, Luz María and José Manuel. Each student made a personal narration of his own university experience in a first-person history, describing aids and barriers. The conclusions discuss the main barriers and facilitators each student perceived at the university and suggest the potential of this technique for construing life histories. Keywords Higher Education, Disability, Inclusive Education, Life-line, Life Histories, Biographical-narrative Method Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 4.0 License. Acknowledgements This work was supported by the [Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness] under Grant [EDU 2010-16264]; [Junta de Andalucía, Proyecto de Excelencia] under Grant [P11-SEJ-7255]. This article is available in The Qualitative Report: https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol23/iss5/7 The Qualitative Report 2018 Volume 23, Number 5, Article 5, 1127-1145 In Life-Lines of Spanish Students with Disabilities during their University Trajectory Noelia Melero, Anabel Moriña, and Rosario López-Aguilar University of Seville, Spain The authors conducted this study at a Spanish university to find out what barriers and aids students with disabilities identified during their university trajectories. The authors used a biographical narrative method, and specifically, life histories. Our analysis concentrated on the life-lines and interviews, showing the histories of three students with disabilities. We analyzed data through a narrative system, approaching each life history separately and making a global analysis of it. The results section presents the university trajectory of three students with disability, Javier, Luz María and José Manuel. Each student made a personal narration of his own university experience in a first-person history, describing aids and barriers. The conclusions discuss the main barriers and facilitators each student perceived at the university and suggest the potential of this technique for construing life histories. Keywords: Higher Education, Disability, Inclusive Education, Life-Line, Life Histories, Biographical-Narrative Method Introduction The purpose of this article is to present the aids and barriers encountered by three students with disabilities in Spain during the course of their university studies, using life histories. Essential facts and events during each of the educational itineraries are highlighted by making use of the life-line data collection technique. A first contribution of this work is to contribute to research on University, Disability and Inclusive Education. In this study, people with disabilities offer their testimonies where they identify both barriers and aids in completing their education at University. The students give arguments that provide clues for Higher Education to review its policies and practices to build accessible and inclusive university settings. A second contribution of the work is the methodology used, since although previously we carried out studies about the university experiences of students with disabilities, we know of only one study on this topic that built life histories (Hopkins, 2011) Finally, visual methods, including lifelines, have been identified as an opportunity for people with disabilities and vulnerable groups to participate in research (Fullana et al., 2014). However, to our knowledge, this data collection technique has not been used previously in studies about higher education or university students with disabilities. In this sense, a third contribution of this article is the presentation of university trajectories of students with disabilities through their life-lines. The Challenge of Inclusive Education at University Access to higher education for non-traditional students, including students with disabilities, is a reality in different international contexts (Laird, 2011; Liasidou, 2014; Seale, 2017). In the case of Spain, the country in which the research presented in this article is developed, 20,793 students with disabilities were registered at universities in the 2016/2017 1128 The Qualitative Report 2018 academic year, accounting for 1.4% of total university students (Universia Foundation, 2017), compared to the 18,418 students registered in 2011-2012, for example. Different initiatives have influenced in the increase of students with disabilities at University. In the first place, different declarations and laws have supported the need for higher education to be wider, open to students traditionally not represented at University (Thomas, 2016). In the international level, for instance, the Convention for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN, 2006) endorsed the obligation to guarantee persons with disabilities access to higher education, professional training, adult education and learning throughout life without discrimination and under the same conditions as others. This same organization has supported inclusive education at University through the 2030 agenda for sustainable development (UN, 2015). The European Union has also supported inclusive higher education, proposing the creation of plans for university support and services which improve access and educational inclusion of students with disabilities (Council of the European Union, 2011; European Commission, 2010). The Organic Law 4/2007 and the Royal Legislative Decree 1/2013 on the rights of people with disabilities and their social inclusion, in the Spanish legislative field, support the inclusion of people with disabilities in higher education and the guarantee of nondiscrimination and equal opportunities. In addition to legal initiatives, through decrees and laws, there are other reasons that might explain the presence of students with disabilities at university: the creation of disability office for supporting this group of students, the incorporation of the new technologies or the implementation of inclusive educational practices (Morgado, López, & Moriña, 2017). In fact, a significant number of countries have started up programs for making universities more accessible to persons with disabilities, and they are gradually becoming more committed to inclusion processes (Barnes, 2007; Jacklin, Robinson, O’Meara, & Harris, 2007). However, although actions and mechanisms have been implemented in different international contexts to guarantee the right of students with disabilities to access the university system on equal terms that the rest of the students, it is not enough. We need mechanisms which contribute to the permanence and successful completion of university studies (Gibson, 2015; Quinn, 2013; Thomas, 2016). This is especially appropriate when several studies have concluded that higher education offers chances for students to experience processes of social inclusion (Moriña, 2017a). In the case of students with disabilities, the university can be considered as an opportunity to improve their quality of life (Moswela & Mukhopadhyay, 2011; Wehman 2006). This experience can help to get and maintain a job and obtain an independent life. It can also be an important experience of empowerment (Moswela & Mukhopadhyay, 2011). Therefore, it is not surprising the movement that exists in favor of inclusion, demanding from different research, that the university walk towards an inclusive education model, since it is considered a pending issue in the agenda of a significant number of universities (Claiborne et al., 2010; Foreman et al., 2001; Holloway, 2001; Hopkins, 2011; Jacklin et al., 2007; Moriña, 2017a; Prowse, 2009). Although the advances of university systems in terms of inclusion are recognized, there is still a long way to go for the university to be inclusive. The inclusive education model supposes giving a quality answer to all the students, increasing the practices that lead to the learning and participation of all the students and the elimination of the obstacles that lead to exclusion (Ainscow, 2016). Likewise, the inclusive education model is conceived from the principles of justice and equality (Lawrence-Brown & Sapon-Shevin, 2013). In this context of inclusive education, disability is conceived from the social model of disability (Oliver, 1990). According to the social model, it is the practices, attitudes and policies of the social context that generate the barriers and/or aid that obstruct or favor the access and participation of people with disabilities in different areas -social, economic, training, etc.- (Barton, 1996). Noelia Melero, Anabel Moriña, and Rosario López-Gavira 1129 There is still much to be done to overcome the persistent barriers to access, retention and graduation, especially for students with disabilities (Pliner & Johnson, 2004). A considerable number of studies have identified obstacles that hinder the educational trajectories of university students with disabilities (Brandt, 2011; Fossey et al., 2017; Kilpatrick et al., 2017; Shevlin et al., 2004; Strnadová et al., 2015). These studies coincide in reporting about the continuous barriers they must face, whether in the macro-institutional environment (inaccessible buildings and virtual environments, unending administrative procedures, or regulations not applied,) or the micro-institutional environment in the classroom (negative attitudes of faculty members, need for faculty training, non-inclusive curricula, or absence of curricular modification). Notwithstanding the foregoing, although less common, some studies describe facilitators for inclusion, such as family support (Riddell et al., 2005; Skinner, 2004), friendships and peer support networks (Gibson, 2012; Riddell et al., 2005), faculty support (Ferni & Henning, 2006; Leyser et al., 2011), help from student disability services (Riddell et al., 2005), or personal support, referring to their own strategies for coping with their difficulties (Moriña, 2017a; Prowse, 2009). In short, providing a quality and inclusive response to students with disabilities should be included in the University's agendas, since the studies conclude that the presence of students with disabilities contributes to the construction of a better University (Higbee et al., 2007; Ridell et al., 2005; Shaw, 2009). It has also been found that changes made for university students with disabilities benefit the rest of the student body (Powney, 2002; Shaw, 2009; Warren, 2002). That is, as acknowledged by Ferni and Henning (2006), good teaching principles are relevant for everyone. In this context, universities are gradually beginning to be more committed to inclusion of students with disabilities, creating, among other initiatives, services for students with disabilities. Jacklin et al. (2007) and Tinklin et al. (2004) conclude that the presence of university students with disabilities is challenging how the university works. In fact, this challenge involves not only physical access to buildings, but also much broader access to curriculum, teaching, learning and evaluation. The Life-Line as a Tool to Study University Trajectories The life-line is a technique that is framed within the visual methods of research (Fitzhugh et al., 2015). This data collection instrument combines quantitative and qualitative information in a concise illustration for visual representation (Martin, 1997). That is, as Gramling and Carr (2004) define it, the life-line is a representation of the past and present of a life history, identifying events in chronological order and showing their importance or significance. Berends (2011) and Kolar et al. (2015) recommend that the technique not be used alone, but be completed with individual interviews. Life-lines have been used for both professional and research purposes. The first includes clinical uses for a multitude of treatments (Martin, 1997) in the field of mental health (Landgarten, 1981) and professional consulting services (Brott, 2005), among others. The second has been used for studies on transitions by women from 25 to 35 years to investigate about their psychosocial development and the strategies used, (Gramling & Carr, 2004), for academic staff (Heydon & Hibbert, 2010), studies on perspectives in experiences with death (Widera-Wysoczañska, 1999), women with a history of drug abuse (Woodhouse, 1992), and disability studies (Frank, 1984). Although this technique has not been used previously for the analysis of university trajectories of people with disabilities, the use in our study is presented as a suitable technique to analyze the barriers and aid identified by students with disabilities. 1130 The Qualitative Report 2018 Method The results presented in this article belong to a research project funded by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness, entitled “University Barriers and Aids Identified by Students with Disabilities.” This study, which lasted four years (2011-2014), was carried out by a research team comprised of faculty members from different areas and fields of knowledge (Education Sciences, Economics, Health Sciences, Experimental Sciences and Humanities). The authors of this article are faculty members of a public University of southern Spain (the first two of Education Sciences and the last author of Economic Sciences). Since 2010 they share research projects, based on qualitative methodologies, whose final target is to contribute to build a more inclusive higher education. In these years, their research team has been concerned with studying the barriers and aids identified by students with disabilities at University; analyze the role of the disability support offices staff; design, develop and evaluate a training program for academic staff in inclusive education and disability; and finally, to study those faculty members who are developing an inclusive pedagogy to know what, how and why they do it. In the specific case of the project that we present in this article we expect to give voice to students who are not usually heard in the studies and through their testimonies, make visible and report the barriers and aid that are found in their university trajectories. Purpose and Research Questions The purpose of the research was to study the barriers and aids identified by students with disabilities in their access, trajectory and results at university from their perspective. In this article, we set out three research questions: a. How do the students who participated in the study describe themselves? b. What are the barriers that students find in their university trajectory? c. What are the helps that students identify in their university trajectory? Qualitative Design In this investigation, the research group decided to use the biographical-narrative methodology. This type of methodology emphasizes the importance of people speaking about themselves, without silence their subjectivity. Therefore, as a research methodology, it is very appropriate to listen to the voices of groups that have been silenced, which may be the case of vulnerable groups not present in scientific discourse, as is the case of people with disabilities (Shah & Priestley, 2011). As Owens (2007) acknowledges, it helps to release the voices and histories of people who are not usually heard. This approach proposes an alternative to the paradigmatic ways of knowing, where the role of the research subject is reconsidered and the need to include subjectivity in the process of understanding reality. This research was developed through two phases of research. In the first phase, extensive, we made focus groups by fields of knowledge. Forty-four students participated in the study. These were organized by groups to interview. Two researchers, one who asked questions and another who took notes, held these interviews. Six to eight students participated in each focus group. In this phase, we expect to know in an extensive way what were the barriers and aid that the participants were at University. In the second phase, we selected 16 students from the initial 44 students, to study in depth the university life histories of these students. The criteria for selection of the 16 students who participated in the second stage were: type of disability, branch of study (so that the five areas of knowledge would be represented), Noelia Melero, Anabel Moriña, and Rosario López-Gavira 1131 availability to participate in the study and university experience in which they met with barriers or assistance. This paper is focused on the second phase of research, presenting only three life histories. This decision has been taken by the authors of the work, not because the life histories are the most representative, but because they expect to present each story in greater depth and therefore, a greater number of life histories would not allow it. Participants Forty-four students with disabilities participated in this study. Access to them was through the Student Disability Office. To access the students, we wrote an email from the office to all students with disabilities at the University. Twenty-one students replied to the email showing interest to take part. Afterwards, the research team presented the project in different universities to recruit more students. It was also necessary to use the snowball technique to have more participants (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2000). This process lasted around an academic course. The office is at city center and look after around 600 students with disabilities. The action protocol is usually an individualized meet with students who requests it and from this interview the needs of the student and the actions that are necessary to answer them are specified. This article concentrates on the life histories of three of these students. As for student’s profile, two of them have a visual disability and one a hearing disability. The three students were studying for different degrees: Biology, Medicine and Labor Relations. The average age of the students was 24 years. The three students were studying their last course of their degrees. Instruments for Data Collection Our research used several life history data collection instruments (in-depth interview and life-lines). In meetings attended by a researcher and each individual student who has been included in this article, they were asked to draw their life-lines, from left to right, starting with the date they entered the university on the left end of the horizontal axis to date, and on the vertical axis each milestone or significant event in their university life history, and to grade it from 0 (where 0 is very negative) to 10 (where 10 is very positive). However, in some cases, due to the student’s disability, for example, students with a visual disability, the researcher filled in the figure for them. We interviewed them several times after that, and in the following meetings, focused on some particular aspects of their life at the University. These were not predetermined aspects, but we delved into those issues that were arising as we were collecting the data. Data Analysis Sparkes (2015) suggests that data analysis in research using life histories should not be paradigmatic or structural (etic perspective), but individual and not generalized. The task is then to configure the elements in the data into a unified history that makes sense in an authentic description of the individual’s life, but without manipulating it. This type of emic analysis attempts to reveal the unique character of each history, developing an argument or storyline. The emic analysis is characterized by being narrative, thinking with the histories, instead of thinking about the histories (Bochner, 2001). In this study, we performed narrative analysis on each participant´s history, as proposed by Goodley et al. (2004) or Sparkes (2015). In collaboration with the main actor in the life history, the information collected with the life-line 1132 The Qualitative Report 2018 and the interviews was organized so it would make sense, without forcing it into any preestablished system of categories. In collaboration with the student, all the information collected was organized to make sense. We created our own analysis system for this study (Moriña, 2017b). Each history was approached individually and the narration itself was the central axis of the analysis. This was done following the steps below:  The researcher read all the information collected (through life-lines and interviews) about the main actor in each life story.  The information in the history was organized chronologically from past to present.  The key moments (landmarks in the student’s histories that they pointed to as a barrier or aid) narrated by the participants in the research were identified by the researcher and agreed with the student.  We attempted to remain neutral in the analysis and respect the history just as the student narrated it. The researcher did not question, judge or place any values on the history itself. Negotiation and continuous feedback were fundamental for the writing of each student’s life history. For this, we held work meetings in which we reviewed the history between a participant student and a researcher, in order that the history would represent the student's testimony.  In the process of analysis and writing we asked ourselves: Was the student reflected in the history? Were we faithful to his words, experiences and emotions? For this, in the analysis process, the student had the final say, and he was who reviewed and gave the go-ahead to the history told. It was he who co-wrote, reviewed, approved, put into context and completed the analysis that we were doing. Writing Life Histories It seems clear that the biographic-narrative methodology for writing life histories must generate a narrative report (Hackett, 2013). As recommended by Goodley et al. (2004) each history in this article was written in first person, always respecting the voice of the main actor and emphasizing his subjectivity. We rewrite the words of the participants so that the history made sense and was organized. However, there was continuous collaboration with the students so that the story would be loyal to their words. The research team coauthored these narratives using the information collected, identifying essential elements in them and decisive moments for understanding the university inclusion process. The narratives were kept neutral, and the voices were those of the students with disabilities, leaving the researchers’ comments for the conclusions and discussion. In this sense, in this type of analysis, the researcher's subjectivity was also inevitably present. Not only because he was who transcribed the words in the text, to later organize them and reconstruct the history of university life, but also because his subjective view about the own history was incorporated into the analysis we carried out. Throughout the entire process, discussion with each participant was indispensable to provide the life history with sense and veracity. Ethical Issues of Research The University in which the study was made does not have an ethical body that approves of studies. However, as it is a study funded by the Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness of Spain, at the time we submitted the request form to obtain financing for the project, we had Noelia Melero, Anabel Moriña, and Rosario López-Gavira 1133 to complete an ethics standards form in which we committed ourselves to the protection of Human Subjects, and in which we guarantee to protect the safety of the participants, privacy, and confidentiality. In the specific case of our study, all three students gave their written informed consent for participation in the study. They were guaranteed anonymity and confidentiality of all the information collected. Furthermore, they were informed that in case they did not want to continue participating in the study, their information would not be included in the analysis and would be destroyed. In addition, pseudonyms were used and all names were modified so as not to identify third parties named by the students. Their co-participation in the study was also planned for. They were invited to participate in the decisions made on the research itself, and they all participated in designing the data collection instruments as well as their analysis. Results This section presents the life histories of three students with disabilities, Javier, Luz María and José Manuel, compiled using the life-line technique. Each history was co-written between the researcher and the protagonist of the life history. Each student made a personal narration of his own university experience in a first-person history, keying aids and barriers. Javier’s Life History Javier is 22 years old and studies s Biology. He considers himself to be an active, curious person, a friend to his friends, committed and with a desire to live. He had always felt a special attraction for nature. He remembers his years in primary school and high school fondly, and they were not especially hard as far as his visual disability is concerned, and in fact, he thought he could say he was hardly aware of it. However, trouble began when he got into the university. He had many problems while he was studying, although he had wanted to study the profession and had had a tremendous My beginning at the university. Enrolment: Fear of the unknown I started the year having troubles with the architectural and teaching barriers. My early eagerness started to disappear The teaching staff did not get involved enough. They made me leave in tears…I was very demotivated and was thinking about dropping out Things started getting better: The SDO began to take an active part There was a change in my attitude: I was calmer and not as upset I kept going: Now I am strong, daring and resolute. I’m not afraid anymore Ac. Yr. 2010-11 Ac. Yr. 2011-12 Ac. Yr. 2012-13 Ac. Yr. 2013-14 Figure 1. Javier’s life-line 1140 The Qualitative Report 2018 Spain). Her acceptance at the university community had been very good. All the faculty members, students and administrative staff treated her fondly and never made the least objection to her presence. He recommended a guide dog for anyone with a visual disability. Discussion In this study, the participants identified a series of common obstacles. All students recognized the physical barriers (because of the spaces were not adapted, the infrastructures were inadequate to their needs or the technological resources were not accessible). These results coincide with other previous studies (Fuller et al., 2004; Holloway, 2001; Moswela & Mukhopadhyay, 2011). The students’ reflections and analyses on the architectural and infrastructure barriers lead us to conclude that, as also reported by Hopkins (2011) and Jacklin et al. (2007) the obstacles found by these students are in the environment. That is, they are structural and not personal or individual, as recognized by the social model of disability. This reality confirms that university spaces still require certain adaptations and readjustments to make them accessible and be used the same way by all students. The goal must therefore be full inclusion, taking universal design as the reference. In addition to this, for Javier and Luz, faculty members were an obstacle to inclusion at the university, both because of their negative attitude toward disability and their lack of information and need for training in this respect. According to these students, faculty members were not sufficiently prepared to properly attend students with disabilities, and this gap in faculty training was one of the main barriers to their academic development. Hadjikakou and Hartas (2008) and Moswela and Mukhopadhyay (2011) also found ignorance about disability and thought that faculty members should be trained to provide a quality response. Moreover, faculty members who have participated in some type of training in this topic have been shown to be better informed and provide a more sensitive response toward students with disabilities (Murray et al., 2011). Universities should therefore include programs directed at attention to students with disabilities in their faculty training agendas. Nonetheless, not only were faculty members not always a barrier, they were sometimes identified as an aid. This was the case of Jose Manuel, who thought the faculty helped him in the teaching-learning process. This shows that the experiences of students at the university are subjective, and depending on the person, the type of disability and the field of knowledge he is in, the obstacles and aids may vary (Moriña, 2017a). We can conclude that the use of the life-line is a technique that facilitates the analysis of the university trajectories of students with disabilities. This is precisely one of the main contributions of our work, since previously this instrument has not been used in research on disability and higher education. We believe the life-line is a powerful methodological tool, not often used in qualitative research. As may be observed in this article, a person’s trajectory may be known from a graphical representation. Through this technique, the key moments and events in the trajectories of the students can be contemplated visually and analyzed in terms of barriers or aids. Nevertheless, this technique in itself is insufficient and the interviews that accompany it are essential. We come to the same conclusion as Berend’s works (2001) and Kolar et al. (2015). With regard to the purpose of this research, the students stressed two basic types of barriers, physical and related to faculty members. The main aid pointed out was the support received from the Disability Office. This reality confirms that university spaces still require certain adaptations and adjustments so that they can be accessible and used in the same way by all students. Therefore, the goal must be to achieve full inclusion, taking the universal design Noelia Melero, Anabel Moriña, and Rosario López-Gavira 1141 as a reference. On the other hand, we consider that it would be convenient for universities to include in their training agendas programs directed to tend to students with disabilities. Even more so if we take into account that there are studies that reveal that faculty members who have participated in some type of training in this sense, have a greater knowledge and sensitivity towards the response to students with disabilities (Murray, Lombardi, & Wren, 2011). What seems to be clear in all three cases, as also concluded in other studies (Holloway, 2001; Hopkins, 2011), is that the problems they found during their studies formed an obstacle course which often discouraged them and even caused them to doubt whether to remain at the university. However, their efforts, their resilient strategies (Zakour & Gillespie, 2013), family and university social networks (Tierney, 2014), and especially the Disability Office, has helped enable them to overcome those barriers. These students have taken a step forward, constructing new mechanisms for “survival,” as they themselves define it, in university environments, which can be somewhat hostile and insufficiently sensitive to the needs derived from their disability. Finally, the study had some limitations, such as data referring to only a single university. It would be of interest to find out what is happening in other universities from the perspective of students with disabilities. Other voices could also be heard, such as faculty members, administration and service staff, and other students. Future studies might approach this subject from different voices or informers and not just students with disabilities, using other data collection instruments (e.g., with on-site observation of spaces and infrastructures), and be more specific, with a more detailed analysis in each of the colleges at the various university campuses. References Ainscow, M. (2016). Diversity and equity: A global education challenge. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 51(2), 153-155. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40841-016-0056-x Barnes, C. (2007). Disability, higher education and the inclusive society. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 28(1), 135-145. doi: 10.1080/01425690600996832 Barton, L. (1996). Disability and society: Emerging issues and insights. London, UK: Longman. Berends, L. (2011). Embracing the visual: Using timelines with in-depth interviews on substance use and treatment. The Qualitative Report, 16(1), 1-9. doi: https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol16/iss1/1 Bochner, A. (2001). Narratives virtues. Qualitative Inquiry, 7, 131-157. doi:10.1177/107780040100700201 Brandt, S. (2011). From policy to practice in higher education: The experiences of disabled students in Norway. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 58(2), 107-120. doi: 10.1080/1034912X.2011.570494. Brott, P. E. (2005). A constructivist look at life roles. The Career Development Quarterly, 54, 138-149. doi: 10.1002/j.2161-0045.2005.tb00146.x Claiborne, L., Cornforth S., Gibson A., & Smith A. (2010). Supporting students with impairments in higher education: Social inclusion or cold comfort. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 15(5), 513-527. doi: 10.1080/13603110903131747 Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Research methods in education (5th ed.). London, UK: Routledge/Falmer. Council of the European Union. (2011). Council conclusions on the role of education and training in the implementation of the Europe 2020 strategy. Retrieved from http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/123923.p df 1142 The Qualitative Report 2018 European Commission. (2010). EUROPE 2020. A European strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. Bruselas: European Commission. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/eu2020/pdf/COMPLET%20EN%20BARROSO%20%20%20007 %20-%20Europe%202020%20-%20EN%20version.pdf Ferni, T., & Henning, M. (2006). From a disabling world to a new vision. In M. Adams & S. Brown (Eds.), Towards inclusive learning in higher education (pp. 23-31). London, UK: Routledge. Fitzhugh, S. M., Butts, C., & Pixley, J. (2015). A life history graph approach to the analysis and comparison of life histories. Advances in Life Course Research, 25, 16-34. doi: 10.1056/j.alcr.2015.05.001 Frank, G. (1984). Life history model of adaptation to disability: The case of a “congenital amputee.” Social Science and Medicine, 19(6), 639-645. doi: 10.1016/0277- 9536(84)90231-4 Foreman, P., Dempsey, I., Robinson, G., & Manning, E. (2001). Characteristics, academic and post-university outcomes of students with a disability at the University of Newcastle. Higher Education Research & Development, 20(3), 313-325. doi: 10.1080/07294360120108386 Fossey, E., Chaffey, L., Venville, A., Ennals, P., Douglas, J., & Bigby, C. (2017). Navigating the complexity of disability support in tertiary education: perspectives of students and disability service staff. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 21(8), 822-832. doi: 10.1080/13603116.2017.1278798 Fullana, J., Pallisera, M., & Villà, M. (2014). Advancing towards inclusive social research: Visual methods as opportunities for people with severe mental illness to participate in research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 17(6), 723-738. doi: 10.1080/13645579.2013.832049 Fuller, M., Healey, M., Bradley, A., & Hall, T. (2004). Barriers to learning: A systematic study of the experience of disabled students in one university, Studies in Higher Education, 29, 303-318. doi: 10.1080/03075070410001682592 Gibson, S. (2012). Narrative accounts of university education: Socio-cultural perspectives of students with disabilities. Disability & Society, 27(3), 353-369. doi: 10.1080/09687599.2012.654987 Gibson, S. (2015). When rights are not enough: What is? Moving towards new pedagogy for inclusive education within UK universities. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 19(8), 875-886. doi: 10.1080/13603116.2015.1015177 Goodley, D., Lawthom, R., Clough, P., & Moore, M. (2004). Researching life stories. London, UK: Routledge. Gramling, L. F., & Carr, R. L. (2004). Lifelines: A life history methodology. Nursing Research, 53(3), 207-210. doi: 10.1097/00006199-200405000-00008 Hackett, R. E. (2013). Interrupting life history: The evolution of relationship within research. The Qualitative Report, 18(14), 1-16. doi: http://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol18/iss14/1 Hadjikakou, K., & Hartas, D. (2008). Higher education provision for students with disabilities in Cyprus. Higher Education, 55, 103-119. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10734-007- 9070-8 Heydon, R., & Hibbert, K. (2010). ‘‘Relocating the personal’’ to engender critically reflective practice in pre-service literacy teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 796- 804. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2009.10.016 Higbee, J. L., Siaka, K., & Bruch, A. L. (2007). Student perceptions of their multicultural learning environment: a closer look. In J. L. Higbee, D. B. Lundell, & I. M. Duranczyk (Eds.), Diversity and the postsecondary experience (pp. 3-24). Minneapolis, MN: Centre for Research on Developmental Education and Urban Literacy. Noelia Melero, Anabel Moriña, and Rosario López-Gavira 1143 Holloway, S. (2001). The experience of higher education from the perspective of disabled students. Disability & Society, 16, 597-615. doi:10.1080/09687590120059568 Hopkins, L. (2011). The path of least resistance: A voice-relational analysis of disabled students' experiences of discrimination in English universities. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 15, 711-727. doi: 10.1080/13603110903317684 Jacklin, A., Robinson, C., O’Meara, L., & Harris, A. (2007). Improving the experiences of disabled students in higher education. Retrieved from http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/documents/research/jacklin.pdf Kilpatrick, S., Johns, S., Barnes, R., Fischer, S., McLennan, D., & Magnussen, K. (2017). Exploring the retention and success of students with disability in Australian higher education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 21(7), 747-762. doi: 10.1080/13603116.2016.1251980 Kolar, K., Ahmad, F., Chan, L., & Erickson, P.G. (2015). Timeline mapping in qualitative interviews: A study of resilience with marginalized groups. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 14(3), 13-32. Laird, T. F. N. (2011). Measuring the diversity inclusivity of college courses. Research in Higher Education, 52(6), 572-588. doi: 10.1007/s11162-010-9210-3 Lawrence-Brown, D., & Sapon-Shevin, M. (2013). Condition critical: Key principles for equitable and inclusive education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Leyser, Y., Greenberger, L., Sharoni, V., & Vogel, G. (2011). Students with disabilities in teacher education: Changes in faculty attitudes toward accommodations over ten years. International Journal of Special Education, 26(1), 162-174. Retrieved from http://www.internationaljournalofspecialeducation.com/ Liasidou, A. (2014). Critical disability studies and socially just change in higher education. British Journal of Special Education, 41, 120-135. doi: 10.1111/1467-8578.12063 Martin, E. (1997). The symbolic graphic life-line: Integrating the past and present through graphic imagery, art therapy. Journal of the American Art Therapy Association, 14(4), 261-267. doi: 10.1080/07421656.1987.10759295 Morgado, B., López, R., & Moriña, A. (2017). The ideal university classroom: Stories by students with disabilities. International Journal of Educational Research, 85, 148-155. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2017.07.013 Moriña, A. (2017a). “We aren’t heroes, we’re survivors:” Higher education as an opportunity for students with disabilities to reinvent an identity. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 41(2), 215-226. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2015.1070402 Moriña, A. (2017b). Research with life histories [Investigar con historias de vidas]. Madrid, Spain: Narcea. Moswela, E., & Mukhopadhyay, S. (2011). Asking for too much? The voices of students with disabilities in Botswana. Disability & Society, 26, 307-319. doi: 10.1080/09687599.2011.560414 Murray, M., Lombardi, A., & Wren, C. T. (2011). The effects of disability-focused training on the attitudes and perceptions of university staff. Remedial and Special Education, 32(4), 290-300. doi: 10.1177/0741932510362188 Oliver, M. (1990). The politics of disablement. London, UK: McMillan Press. Owens, J. (2007). Liberating voices through narrative methods: The case for an interpretative research approach. Disability & Society, 22(3), 299-313. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09687590701259617 Pliner, S. M., & Johnson, J. R. (2004). Historical, theoretical, and foundational principles of universal instructional design in higher education. Equity & Excellence in Education, 37, 105-113. doi: 10.1080/10665680490453913 1144 The Qualitative Report 2018 Powney, J. (Ed). (2002). Successful student diversity. Case studies of practice in learning and teaching and widening participation. Bristol, UK: Higher Education Funding Council for England. Prowse, S. (2009). Institutional construction of disabled students. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 31, 89-96. doi: 10.1080/13600800802559302 Quinn, J. (2013). Drop-out and completion in higher education in Europe among students from under-represented groups. NESET for the European Commission. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/education/library/study/2015/annex-4-success-profiles_en.pdf Riddell, S., Tinklin, T., & Wilson, A. (2005). Disabled students in higher education. London, UK: Routledge. Seale, J. (2017). From the voice of a “Socratic gadfly”: A call for more academic activism in the researching of disability in postsecondary education. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 32(1), 153-169. doi: 10.1080/08856257.2016.1254967 Shah, S., & Priestley, M. (2011). Disability and social change. Bristol, UK: University of Bristol. Shaw, J. (2009). The diversity paradox: does student diversity enhance or challenge excellence? Journal of Further and Higher Education, 33 (4), pp. 321-331. DOI: 10.1080/03098770903266018 Shevlin, M., Kenny, M., & Mcneela, E. (2004). Participation in higher education for students with disabilities: An Irish perspective. Disability & Society, 19, 15-30. doi: 10.1080/0968759032000155604 Skinner, M. E. (2004). College students with learning disabilities speak out: What it takes to be successful in postsecondary education. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 17(2), 91-104. Sparkes, A. C. (2015). When bodies need stories. Dialogical narrative analysis in action. In M. O’Neill, B. Roberts, & A. C. Sparkes (Eds.), Advances in biographical methods (pp. 30-42). London, UK: Routledge. Strnadová, I., Hájková, V., & Kve ton ová, L. (2015). Voices of university students with disabilities: inclusive education on the tertiary level – a reality or a distant dream? International Journal of Inclusive Education, 19(10), 1080-1095. doi: 10.1080/ 13603116.2015.1037868 Tierney, W. G. (2014). Danny’s fight for life: Cultural flexibility and life history method reexamined. Qualitative Inquiry, 20, 95-107. doi: 10.1177/1077800413508524 Thomas, L. (2016). Developing inclusive learning to improve the engagement, belonging, retention, and success of students from diverse groups. In M. Shah, A. Bennett, & E. Southgate (Eds.), Widening higher education participation. A global perspective (pp. 135-159). Oxford, UK: Elsevier. Tinklin, T., Riddell, S., & Wilson, A. (2004). Policy and provision for disabled students in higher education in Scotland and England: The current state of play. Studies in Higher Education, 29(5), 637-657. doi: 10.1080/0307507042000261599 United Nations. (2006). Convention for the rights of persons with disabilities. Geneva, Switzerland: UN. United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for suitable development. Retrieved from https://www.un.org/pga/wpcontent/uploads/sites/3/2015/08/120815_outcome-document-of-Summit-for-adoption- of-the-post-2015-development-agenda.pdf Universia Foundation [Fundación Universia]. (2017). Guide to care for the disability at the University [Guía de atención a la discapacidad en la Universidad]. Retrieved from http://www.fundacionuniversia.net/wpcontent/uploads/2017/05/Guia_Atencion_Discapacidad_2017_ACCESIBLE.pdf Noelia Melero, Anabel Moriña, and Rosario López-Gavira 1145 Warren, D. (2002). Curriculum design in a context of widening participation in higher education. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 1(1), 85-99. doi: 10.1177/1474022202001001007 Wehman, P. (2006). Life beyond the classroom: Transition strategies for young people with disabilities (4th ed.) Baltimore, MD: Paul Brookes. Widera-Wysoczañska, A. (1999). Everyday awareness of death: A qualitative investigation. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 39, 73-95. doi:10.1177/0022167899393008 Woodhouse, L. D. (1992). Women with jagged edges: Voices from a culture of substance abuse. Qualitative Health Research, 2(3), 262-281. doi:10.1177/104973239200200302 Zakour, M. J., & Gillespie, D. F. (2013). Community, disaster vulnerability: Theory, research and practice. New York, NY: Springer. Author Note Noelia Melero is with the Department of Education of the School of Education at the University of Seville, C/ Pirotecnia, s/n (41013) Sevilla – España ORCID: 0000-0002-7033- 7165 Phone: 0034- 955480576. Correspondence regarding this article can be addressed directly to: [email protected]. Anabel Moriña is with the Department of Education of the School of Education at the University of Seville, C/ Pirotecnia, s/n (41013) Sevilla – España ORCID: 0000-0002-0852- 7523 Phone: 0034-955420617 Correspondence regarding this article can also be addressed directly to: [email protected]. Rosario López-Gavira is with the Department of Accounting and Finance of the School of Economics and Business at the University of Seville, Seville, Spain. ORCID: 0000-0003- 4991-4586 Phone: 0034-954556046 Correspondence regarding this article can also be addressed directly to: [email protected]. This work was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness under Grant [EDU 2010-16264]; Junta de Andalucía, Proyecto de Excelencia under Grant [P11-SEJ-7255]. Copyright 2018: Noelia Melero, Anabel Moriña, Rosario López-Gavira, and Nova Southeastern University. Article Citation Melero, N., Moriña, A., & López-Gavira, R. (2018). In the light of shared words: Collaborative writing in a research study on student voice in Spanish schools. The Qualitative Report, 23(5), 1127-1145. Retrieved from https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol23/iss5/7 View publication statsView publication stats