The experiences of a disabled university student: An evaluation with two different analysis methods

Abstract

The literature consists of different perspectives relating disability. The most known models are the medical model, social model and biopsychosocial model. This study is conceptualized within the social model perspective, which argues that disability is a fact of life, a different life experience and it might also be interesting and affirmative. It is aimed to investigate the experience of a disabled university student. Initially a 55- minutes interview was conducted and transcribed verbatim. Afterwards, with the usage of two different qualitative methods (interpretative phenomenological analysis –IPA- and discourse analysis), a quest for meaning was started. The two different methods revealed similar results. These results, focusing on relation based, emotional, and coping like different aspects of being a disabled university student, were presented in detail. The results were discussed in relation to the well-being and quality of life characteristics of disabled people. Particular emphasis was placed on the results’ potential contribution to the intervention programs on improvement of well-being and quality of life of disabled university students. 

Keywords

• disabled university student,social model of disability,interpreative phenomenological analysis,discourse analysis,lived experiences

Engelli Bir Üniversite Öğrencisinin Deneyimleri: İki Farklı Analiz Yöntemiyle Değerlendirme

Abstract

Literatürde engel ile ilgili farklı bakış açıları mevcuttur. Bunların en bilinenleri tıbbi model, sosyal model ve biyopsikososyal modeldir. Bu çalışma; engeli, hayatın bir gerçeği, değişik bir yaşam deneyimi, ilginç ve müspet bir olgu olarak tanımlayan sosyal model çerçevesinde kurgulanmıştır. Bu çalışma kapsamında, engelli bir üniversite öğrencisinin eğitim hayatıyla ilgili deneyimlerinin incelemesi amaçlanmıştır. İlk aşamada, katılımcı ile 55 dakika süren bir görüşme yapılmış ve konuşulanlar kelimesi kelimesine yazıya aktarılmıştır. Daha sonra ise iki farklı nitel analiz yöntemi (yorumlayıcı fenomonolojik analiz -YFA- ve söylem analizi) bir arada kullanılarak analizler yapılmıştır. Kullanılan iki analiz yöntemi engelli bir üniversite öğrencisi olmanın farklı boyutlarında benzer bulgular ortaya çıkarmıştır. Örneğin ‘engelli olmanın adil olmadığı’ ile ilgili husus hem YFA hem de söylem analizi sonucunda ortaya çıkmıştır. İki analizin sonuçları karşılaştırıldığında ortaya çıkan en büyük fark, olumsuzlukların söylem analizi sonucunda daha çok kendini göstermesidir. Katılımcının deneyimleri anlamlandırılmaya çalışılırken hem içeriğe hem de bu içeriğin nasıl ifade edildiğine odaklanılmıştır. Bu özellikleriyle, tek katılımcının dâhil edildiği bu çalışma, iki farklı analiz yönteminin kullanımı sonucunda elde edilecek bulguları yorumlama konusunda pilot çalışma niteliğinde bir araştırma olarak kabul edilebilir. Sonuçlar, sosyal model bakış açısıyla incelendiğinde ise toplumun katılımcıya pek çok engel çıkardığı sonucuna varılabilir. Bunun yanında, şartlar ve zaman katılımcının lehine işlemiştir. Engelli üniversite öğrencileri ile ilgili çalışmaların devam etmesi özellikle psikolojik iyilik hallerinin geliştirilmesi açsından önemlidir. Pastanın kreması olarak nitelendirilebilecek bu öğrencilerinin desteklenmesi toplum refahına katkı sağlayacaktır. 

Keywords

• engelli üniversite öğrencisi,engelin sosyal modeli,yorumlayıcı fenomonolojik analiz,söylem analizi,yaşanmış deneyimler

References

1. Arkonaç, S. A. (2014) Psikoloji ve söylem çalışmaları. Eleştirel Psikoloji Bülteni, 39-54.
2. Barnes, C. (2007). Disability, higher education and the inclusive society. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 28(1), 135-145.
3. Barnes, C. ve Mercer, G. (2003). Disability. UK: Polity Press.
4. Bakır, A. B. (2016). An Investigation and Comparison of Human Factors inDriving and Attitudes Towards Disabled Drivers: A Study with Disabled and Non-Disabled Drivers. (Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi). Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi, Ankara, Türkiye.
5. Bakır, A. ve Öz, B. (2016). Trafikte engelli sürücülere yönelik tutumlar: Mülakat sonuçlarının içerik analizi. Sürdürülebilir Ulaşım İçin Yol ve Trafik Güvenliği Kongresi (ROTRASA) Bildiri Kitabı.
6. Brunsden, V. ve Hill, R. (2009). Firefighters’ experience of strike: An interpretative phenomenological analysis case study. The Irish Journal of Psychology, 30(1-2), 99-115.
7. Caprara, G. V., Vecchione, M., Alessandri, G., Gerbino, M., ve Barbaranelli, C. (2011). The contribution of personality traits and self-efficacy beliefs to academic achievement: A longitudinal study. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(1), 78–96.
8. Catalano, R. F., Fagan, A. A., Gavin, L. E., Greenberg, M. T., Irwin, C. E., Ross, D. A., ve ark. (2012). Worldwide application of prevention science in adolescent health. Lancet 379(9826), 1653–1664.

9. Damianakis, T. ve Woodford, M. R. (2012). Qualitative research with small connected communities: Generating new knowledge while upholding research ethics. Qualitative Health Research, 22(5), 708-718.
10. Davis, L. ve Green, J. (1999). Living disability: A conversation. Social Alternatives, 18(1), 18-23.
11. Dökmen, Z. Y. ve Tutarel-Kışlak, Ş. (2004). Engelli olan ve olmayan üniversite öğrencilerinin demografik ve psikolojik özellikleri ile sorunlarının karşılaştırılması. Kriz Dergisi, 12(2), 33-47.
12. Edwards, D., & Potter, J. (1992). Discursive psychology. London: Sage.
13. Eisenberg, D., Golberstein, E., ve Hunt, J. B. (2009). Mental health and academic success in college. B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis and Policy, 9. Article 40.
14. French, S. (2004). Can you see the rainbow? The roots of denial. J. Swain, S. French, C. Barnes, ve C. Thomas, (Eds). Disabling barriers-enabling environments (ss. 81-86). London: Sage Publications.
15. French, S. ve Swain, J. (2004). Controlling inclusion in education: Young disabled people’s perspectives. J. Swain, S. French, C. Barnes ve C. Thomas, (Eds). Disabling barriers-enabling environments (ss. 169-175). London: Sage Publications.
16. Fuller, M., Healey, M., Bradley, A., ve Hall, T. (2004). Barriers to learning: A systematic study of the experience of disabled students in one university. Studies in Higher Education, 29(3), 303- 318.
17. Ghaemi, S. N. (2009). The rise and fall of the biopsychosocial model. British Journal of Psychiatry, 195(1), 3-4.
18. Gutman, L. M. ve Schoon, I. (2015). Preventive interventions for children and adolescents: A review of meta-analytic evidence. European Psychologist, 20(4), 231–241.
19. Gill, R. (1996). Discourse analysis: Practical implementation. J. T. E. Richardson, (Ed). Handbook of qualitative research methods for psychology and the social sciences (ss. 141-156). Leicester: British Psychological Society.
20. Goode, J. (2007). ‘Managing’ disability: Early experiences of university students with disabilities. Disability and Society, 22(1), 35-48.
21. Hammersley, M. (1996). The relationship between qualitative and quantitative research: Paradigm loyalty versus methodological eclecticism. J. T. E. Richardson, (Ed). Handbook of qualitative research methods for psychology and the social sciences (ss. 159-174). Leicester: British Psychological Society.
22. Holloway, S. (2001). The experience of higher education from the perspective of disabled students. Disability and Society, 16(4), 597-615.
23. 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(7), 711-727.
24. Humber, L. A. (2014). Social inclusion through employment: the marketisation of employment support for people with learning disabilities in the United Kingdom. Disability and Society, 29(2), 275-289.
25. Koca-Atabey, M. (2013). A personal validation of the social nature of disability: Different environments, different experiences. Disability and Society, 28(7), 1027-1031.
26. Koca-Atabey, M. (2016). Yeşilçam’da körlüğün temsili: Trajik, tıbbi ve zamansız. Klinik Psikoloji Dergisi, 3(1), 16-27.
27. Koca-Atabey, M. (2017) Re-visiting the role of disability coordinators: The changing needs of disabled students and current support strategies from a UK university. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 32(1), 137-145.
28. Koca-Atabey, M., Karancı, A. N., Dirik, G., ve Aydemir, D. (2011). Psychological well-being of Turkish university students with physical impairments: An evaluation within the stress-vulnerability paradigm. International Journal of Psychology, 46(2), 106-118.
29. Koca-Atabey, M. ve Öz, Bahar. (2017). Telling about something that you do not really know: Blind people are talking about vision! Disability and Society, 32(10), 1656-1660.
30. Laes, T. ve Westerlund, H. (20018). Performing disability in music teacher education: Moving beyond inclusion through expanded professionalism. International Journal of Music Education, 36(1), 34-46.
31. Mayers, C., Leavey, G., Vallianatou, C., ve Baker, C. (2007). How clients with religious or spiritual beliefs experience psychological help-seeking and therapy: A qualitative study. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 14(4), 317-327.
32. Morris, J. (1991). Pride against prejudice. Transforming attitudes to disability. London: Women`s Press.
33. Morris, J. (1993). Independent lives. Community care and disabled people. London: Macmillan Press.
34. Morse, J. M. (1998). The contracted relationship: Ensuring protection of anonymity and confidentiality. Qualitative Health Research, 8(3), 301-303.
35. Ong-Dean, C. (2005). Reconsidering the social location of the medical model: An examination of disability in parenting literature. Journal of Medical Humanities, 26(2-3), 141-158.
36. Oliver, M. (1996). Understanding disability: From theory to practice. New York: St Martin's Press.
37. Pietkiewicz, I. ve J. A. Smith (2014). A practical guide to using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis in qualitative research psychology. nomenological Analysis. Czasopismo Psychologiczne – Psychological Journal, 20(1), 7-14.
38. Potter, J. (1996). Representing reality: Discourse, rhetoric and social construction. London: Sage Publications.
39. Potter, J. (2004). Discourse analysis as a way of analysing naturally occurring talk. In D. Silverman (Ed.),Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice (pp. 200-222). London: Sage.
40. Potter, J. (2012). Discourse analysis and discursive psychology. In: H. Cooper (Editor). APA handbook of research methods in psychology: Quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological, and biological (pp. 111-130). Washington: American Psychological Association Press.
41. Poussu-Olli, H. S. (1999). To be a disabled university student in Finland. Disability and Society, 14(1), 103-113.
42. Priestly, M. (2003). Disability. A life course approach. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
43. Pringle, J., Drummond, J., McLafferty, E., ve Hendry, C. (2011). Interpretative phenomenological analysis: A discussion and critique. Nurse Researcher, 18(3), 20-24.
44. Redpath, J., Kearney, P., Nicholl, P., Mulvenna, M., Wallace, J., ve Martin, S. (2013). A qualitative study of the lived experiences of disabled post-transition students in higher education institutions in Northern Ireland. Studies in Higher Education, 38(9), 1334-1350.
45. Roth, J. L., ve Brooks-Gunn, J. (2003). Youth development programs: Risk, prevention and policy. Journal of Adolescent Health, 32(3), 170–182.
46. Schillmeier, M. (2008). Time-spaces of in/dependence and dis/ability. Time and Society 17 (2/3), 215–231.
47. Shakespeare T. (2008). Disability: Suffering, social oppression, or complex predicament? M. Düwell, C. Rehmann-Sutter, ve D. Mieth (Eds), The contingent nature of life: Bioethics and limits of human existence (ss. 231-241). Heidelberg: Springer.
48. Smith, J. A. (1996). Beyond the divide between cognition and discourse: Using interpretative phenomenological analysis in health psychology. Psychology and Health, 11(2), 261-271.
49. Smith, J. A. (2011). Evaluating the contribution of interpretative phenomenological analysis. Health Psychology Review, 5(1), 9-27.
50. Smith, J. A., Jarman, M., ve Osborn, M. (1999). Doing interpretative phenomenological analysis. M. Murray ve K. Chamberlain (Éds), Qualitative Health Psychology: Theories and methods (ss. 218-240). London: Sage Publications.
51. Smith, J. A. ve Osborn, M. (2003). Interpretative phenomenological analysis. J. A. Smith (Ed), Qualitative psychology. A practical guide to research methods (ss. 51-80). London: Sage Publications.
52. Soorenian, A. (2013). Housing and transport: access issues for disabled international students in British universities. Disability and Society, 28(8), 1118-1131.
53. Taylor, S. J. ve Bogdan, R. (1998). Introduction to qualitative research methods: A guidebook and resource. New York: Wiley.
54. UPIAS [Union of the Physically Impaired Against Segregation]. (1975). Fundamental principles. Erişim adresi: http://disability-studies.leeds.ac.uk/files/library/UPIAS-fundamentalprinciples.pdf
55. Whittington, A. ve Burns, J. (2005). The dilemmas of residential care staff working with the challenging behaviour of people with learning disabilities. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 44(1), 59-76.
56. WHO [World Health Organization]. (2002). International classification of functioning, disability and health: ICF. Geneva: World Health Organization.
57. Willing, C. (2001). Introducing qualitative research in psychology. Adventures in theory and method. London: Sage Publications.
58. Willing, C. (2003). Discourse Analysis. J. A. Smith (Ed), Qualitative psychology. A practical guide to research methods (ss. 159-183). London: Sage Publications.
59. Worthman, C. ve Troiano, B.(2016). A good student subject: A Foucauldian discourse analysis of an adolescent writer negotiating subject positions. Critical Studies in Education, DOI: 10.1080/17508487.2016.1246372
60. Wynaden, D., Wichmann, H., ve Murray, S. (2013). A synopsis of the mental health concerns of university students: results of a text-based online survey from one Australian university. Higher Education Research and Development, 32(5), 846–860.
61. Zambo, D. (2004). Using qualitative methods to understand the educational experiences of students with dyslexia. Qualitative Report, 9(1), 80-94.