University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Students with disabiltiies and identity development: higher education, ableism, meritocracy, and meaning making

(USC Thesis Other)

Students with disabiltiies and identity development: higher education, ableism, meritocracy, and meaning making

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

STUDENTS WITH DISABILTIIES AND IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT: HIGHER
EDUCATION, ABLEISM, MERITOCRACY, AND MEANING MAKING

by

Danny Hernandez

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

August 2021

Copyright 2021 Danny Hernandez
ii

Dedication
I dedicate this dissertation to my sister, Chrystal Arlene Hernandez. It was her experience
as a person with a disability, her support, and strength that have encouraged and guided my steps
as a professional and on this doctoral journey.
I dedicate this to my grandparents, Carlos and Carmen Cruz. You both amaze me and
your lives inspire me daily to live my own life to the fullest and to be the best person I can
possibly be. Your input in my life and the impact both of you have had is without measure.
Thank you both for constantly believing in me and my abilities. You both sought a better future
for all of us when you moved the family to the United States and I hope that I have made you
both proud and I will do what I can to carry your legacies forward. I love you both.
I also dedicate this to my parents, Robert and Carmen Hernandez. Thank you for not only
teaching us but modeling hard work, commitment, and determination. Christian, Michael,
Chrystal and I are indebted to you both for your sacrifice and belief in each one of us. Without
both of you, I would not be the person I am nor would I have the opportunities that I have had in
life. As you both have taught me, I will always remember where I came from and how I got here
with a thankful and grateful heart. Thank you and I love you mom and dad.
Lastly, I dedicate this to my wonder and beautiful wife, Alyssa Hernandez. Thank you for
the many ways that you selflessly give of yourself to me and our family (Audrey and future
kiddos- Daddy loves you all so much!!). I am eternally grateful to God for allowing me to have a
life partner like you. Your love, support, and encouragement are unmatched and I am a better
man, husband, and father for having you in my life. I love you more than words can describe!

iii

Acknowledgements
This dissertation was a long, drawn out process. There were days in this journey where I
felt alone and wanted to give up. I say this because I would have never persevered without the
help, mentorship, encouragement, and support of so many people.
First, I would like to thank my dissertation chair, Dr. Alan Green. Your class on diversity
and equity shaped me as a person and professional in ways that cannot be measured. It was a
major catalyst in giving me the interest and passion to pursue this dissertation. I am indebted to
you for your constant patience with me, your feedback, and for helping me think critically
throughout this process. I also would like to thank the rest of my committee, Dr. Guadalupe
Garcia-Montano and Dr. Patricia Tobey. Thank you so much for sharing your wisdom, feedback,
and encouragement along the way.
Next, I would like to thank my family and friends. I am fortunate enough to have such a
wonderful community of people who care, love, and believe in me even when I am at my worst.
God has been so faithful to place these amazing and important people in my life and for that I am
truly grateful. While there are too many names to name, I want you all to know that God’s grace
has been demonstrated and felt through all of you in countless ways. I love you all, thank you for
putting up with me, and I promise to do what I can to make you all proud.
Lastly, I want to thank my wonderful student affairs colleagues and doctoral classmates.
During my time at Pitzer College, the University of Southern California, and Scripps College, I
have had the opportunity to work with amazing individuals. This work is not always easy but
having colleagues with such passion, intellect, and compassion has made it worthwhile. Last but
certainty not least, a big shout out to the USC OC Cohort! You all are the best! Thank you so
much for the laughs, your wisdom, sarcasm, and the memories that I will forever cherish!
iv

Table of Contents
Dedication
Acknowledgments
List of Figures
Abstract
Chapter One: Overview of the Study
Chapter Two: Literature Review
Chapter Three: Methodology
Chapter Four: Analysis of Findings
Chapter Five: Implications for Practice and Future Research
References
Appendices
Appendix A: Study Participation Request
Appendix B: Information Sheet for Subjects
Appendix C: Interview Protocol
ii
iii
v
vi
1
8
40
49
109
130

150
151
153

v

List of Figures

Figure 1: Development towards self-authorship
Figure 2: Reconceptualized model of multiple dimensions of identity
Figure 3: Practical Implications for Practitioners
37
38
125

vi

Abstract
As a matter of equity, institutions of higher education have not yet adopted practices and cultures
to fully enable all students to succeed (Kezar, 2011). As with many aspects of student identity,
students with disabilities are often overlooked because people do not recognize the nuances of
identity and their narratives and how these can impact their college experience (Lindburg,
Myers, & Nied, 2014). In higher education, knowing how to create an inclusive environment is a
necessary but not a sufficient condition for working effectively with students with disabilities:
one must understand the students themselves (Evans, 2008). The fact that students with
disabilities and their experiences continue to be a mystery to people without disabilities on
college campuses is a problem that institutions of higher education continue to face. An ableist
and meritocratic environment can be laden with assumptions about what is normal and can often
disadvantage students with disabilities in ways that accommodations cannot overcome. The best
and finest accommodations based on the most sophisticated science will have no value if
intolerance denies their use and minimizes their effectiveness (Denhart, 2008).
The purpose of this study was to understand the meaning-making experiences of college
students with disabilities and how it interacts with their contexts, social identity salience, and
core identity valued characteristics in an effort to equip and promote accountability amongst
practitioners in higher education. This dissertation was a qualitative study of the effects of
meritocracy and ableism in the identity meaning-making of students with disabilities. Using a
narrative inquiry methodology, the author conducted lengthy in-person interviews with five
undergraduate participants. The emergent themes from the study indicate that awareness of a
disability identity is a gradual and ongoing process that is heavily impacted by familial and
educational environments. The study results highlighted that disability is not static but
vii

continually shaped by both positive and negative experiences but institutions only offer limited
support beyond academic accommodations to support students as they navigate these
environments. Furthermore, it was apparent that tenets of ableism and meritocracy can be
internalized in the making meaning processes and can result in a strong resistance of adopting a
strong identity salience. Further research is needed on the experiences of students with
disabilities broadly, and, more specifically, how practitioners and institutions can work to create
accessible and equitable environments for all students, especially those with disabilities.
Keywords: College students, Disability, Identity, Ableism, Meritocracy, Higher Education

1

CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Background of the Problem
Akin to Ralph Ellison’s Invisible Man, whose identity as an African American man
renders him invisible, many students with disabilities continue to feel invisible on their college
campuses. It has been over 40 years since the passage of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and over
25 years since the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (ADA 42 U.S.C. Sec. 12111, 1990),
yet people with disabilities continue to be overlooked and face the stigma of being seen as less-
than, deficient, and unable to meet normal standards. This is especially true for the growing
number of college students with disabilities. According to the National Center for Education
Statistics (2015), in 2013, 11% of all students in postsecondary institutions had learning
disabilities. In fact, students with disabilities are the largest growing minority student population
in the United States (Paul, 2000). Although these numbers have increased, there have been only a
few advances in best practices in accommodating students with disabilities in an effort to create
inclusive environments that facilitate academic success. Currently, the graduation rate of
students with disabilities is approximately 26%, which is half that of students without disabilities
(Gregg, 2009). Many of these students, in comparison to their colleagues, reported receiving
fewer college-based grants, requiring more tutoring and remedial services, having lower
retention rates, and needing extra time to earn college degrees (Higher Education Research
Institute, 2012).
In addition, many of these students face the historical underpinnings associated with
having a disability in the United States. Throughout history, disability has been variously viewed
as a sign of spiritual depravity, a cause for ridicule, a genetic weakness to be exterminated,
something to be hidden away, a source of pity, a community health problem, and a problem to be
2

fixed (Griffin & McClintock, 1997). This sheds light on the domination and power of the able-
bodied, nondisabled perspective, experience, and point of view (Linton, 1998). This sort of
oppression is reinforced by the idea of meritocracy, the predominant ideology in elite American
colleges and universities since the 1950s (Geiger, 2000). American meritocracy is based on the
premise that equal education and employment opportunities are available to all (Kluegel &
Smith, 1986). In short, if one works hard enough, one should be able reach one’s fullest potential
and receive commensurate rewards. Under the idea of meritocracy, individuals are not held
accountable for where they start out in life, but they are held responsible for where they end up
(McNamee & Miller, 2004). Due to the perception that the acquisition of rewards depends on
how hard an individual works, a meritocratic system is seen as fair to everyone (Kluehel &
Smith, 1986).
However, this system does not appropriately reflect the needs of individuals, and it fails
to consider equity rather than equality. The idea of meritocracy perpetuates the oppression of
people with disabilities by communicating that the environment or system does not need to
change and it is not the problem: the individual is (Alvarado, 2010). Disability is socially
constructed, and it is the person-created environment that is disabling rather than the physical,
cognitive, or mental variation an individual experience (Hahn, 1988). This lack of equity leads to
further marginalization of students with disabilities and can have negative broad-reaching
consequences for future quality of life, learning, and career experiences (Lindburg, Myers, &
Nied, 2014). Discrimination and oppression against people with disabilities has become so
ordinary that it is invisible (Rocco & Delgado, 2011).

3

Statement of the Problem
No institution in the United States is credited with having the most impact on upward
mobility like higher education. Built into the American ideology of meritocracy that hard work
leads to improved life opportunities, academic achievement is seen as the best means to
accessing greater rewards. In fact, higher education is often seen as the pinnacle of individual
hard work, determination, and intelligence (Stanton-Salazar, 1997). Moreover, education has had
a prominent role in evaluating fairness regarding status attainment. For example, candidates for
an employment position are evaluated by their academic achievement or credentials earned and
students who seek to access higher education are evaluated based on measurements or
characteristics that determine whether they fulfilled their academic potential. However, the
binary system of equality does not appropriately reflect the needs of individuals and leads to
confused and harsh attitudes towards people with disabilities (Lindburg et al., 2014).
For decades now, institutions of higher education have been seen as engines of economic
development and thought of as places of career preparation and training for the labor force. The
effect has been that people are less interested in the broader questions of the identity and
characteristics of graduates (Engell & Dangerfield, 2005). Consequently, students are narrowly
seen as economic resources or products who have skill sets that can add value to an organization
(Barnett, 1994). In the first two decades of the 20th century, institutions of higher education
began to take on the German model of higher education and institutions began to emphasize
research and the production of knowledge and no longer focused on the questions involving
student development (Rudolph & Thelin, 1990). This meant having a large focus on making the
aim of schooling for graduates one of possessing and producing proper stock of knowledge and
questions of whom students become professionally while their development fell outside of this
4

agenda (Hanson, 2014). Consequently, faculty, administration, and policy makers have rarely
assessed the meaning of the college experience and paid little attention to the webs of narratives
that students inhabit that shape their identities, specifically students with disabilities (Hanson,
2014).
Over the years, disability legislation has provided increased protection and equitable
opportunities for individuals with disabilities. The passage of laws such as Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008
(ADAAA), and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA), helped to
increase educational support for students with disabilities by creating balance between their
rights and the resources and obligations of the institution (Skinner, 2007). This is important
because, over the last decade, students with disabilities have become the largest unrepresented
population in the United States (Paul, 2000). Yet, as seen in cases such as Jenkins v. National
Board of Medical Examiners (2009), there are still higher education institutions that continue to
discriminate against students with disabilities, whether consciously or unconsciously (Lindburg
et al., 2014). Disability is seen as an unfortunate condition and the person with a disability is
viewed as a poor unfortunate victim (Rocco, 2005). The absence of efforts to change these
attitudes and change the culture of practices in higher education will continue to create
significant barriers to access, retention, and graduation rates for many students with disabilities
(Pliner & Johnson, 2004).
Purpose of the Study
It is common for persons to have an inaccurate picture of disabilities. Frequently,
individuals define disability based on their own experience, or lack thereof, which sometimes
results in a narrow of understanding of disability (Lindburg et al., 2014). This narrow
5

understanding results in viewing all these students as one, together, and placing them in a single
category. However, the multiple identities within the disability community—physical, cognitive,
and psychological—create a vast spectrum of individualized experiences for individuals with a
disability (Lindburg et al., 2014). By categorizing these students into a single group, there is little
attention to the complexity of how students individually experience their own disability identity
and the societal barriers they face. The major purpose of this study will be to examine how
students with disabilities make meaning of their identity and how this can, in turn, affect
institutions of higher education.
Currently, the efforts of many institutions of higher education to support students with
disabilities focus on the deficit of the individual and on making accommodations so that the
person is able to fit into an established environment (Burgstahler & Cory, 2008). In this view, the
disability is the problem instead of the environment. Moreover, this results in grouping these
students and labeling them as deviant from the norm and simplifying them through a defined
word: disabled. This is done by imposing standards of normalcy that exclude those who are
different physically, emotionally, or cognitively (Evans, Assadi, & Herriott, 2005). Moreover,
this is further reinforced by the myth of meritocracy built into the educational system. The
widespread assumption that the ability to succeed in school is of primary importance for young
people can be seen as meritocratic, in that it values a particular way of knowing, learning, and
interacting and devalues other ways (Ostiguy, Peters, & Shlasko, 2016). It can be argued that it is
the attitudes towards those deemed abnormal that actively causes their disablement, not their
physical or sensory impairment or their perceived lack of cognitive ability or “appropriate
behaviors” (Conner & Baglieri, 2009). A shift needs to occur in higher education directing
attention away from deficit, defect, and illness, focusing on the person’s body and its limitations
6

and, instead, moving towards the lived experiences of people with disabilities and the social
construction of disability in today’s society (Lindburg et al., 2014).
Human variation is a natural part of the diversity of life rather than a deficit and this
should inform and challenge the practices of institutions in higher education (Ashmore &
Kasnitz, 2014). In order to make these changes, institutions need to adapt the belief that the
person who experiences disability is the best person to understand his or her circumstances. To
make their campuses more inclusive, institutions should ensure that policies and practices reflect
a high value for diversity of all types, including ability (Burgstahler, 2011). To this end, this
study will focus on ability equity and promote accountability in higher education by
understanding the meaning-making experiences of students with disabilities and how it interacts
with their contexts, social identity salience, and core identity valued characteristics.
Research Questions
The research questions for the study are the following:
1. How did these college students come to identify themselves as a person with a disability
and what role did their social and educational surroundings have in this process?
2. Through their experiences and challenges, what have these college students come to learn
about their identity and how have they, specifically, made meaning of their identity as a
person with disability in light of these events?
3. What, if any, tenets of meritocracy and ableism have these students internalized or
contested in their meaning making process in an age of academic meritocracy within
higher education and what impact does this have on how they view their disability
identity?

7

Significance of the Study
This study may prove to be significant for a number of reasons. First, through the
methodological orientation of this study, one may gain awareness of the experiences of students
with disabilities and identify how to best support them. The study, therefore, can help fill in
some gaps and help with the development of effective and informed practice in higher education.
Second, this study will explore and add to the research being done on identity consciousness,
formation, and development. Given that students with disabilities are the largest growing student
minority in the United States (Paul, 2000), it is important to consider how this identity is formed,
intersects, and relates to the cultural, social, and political contexts. By examining the effects of
meritocracy on the identity development of college students, specifically those with disabilities,
professionals of all levels in higher education can learn how to advocate and work with this
growing student population. Specifically, this study focuses on the lived experiences of people
with disabilities in order to cultivate critical consciousness, identify systemic and personal
barriers to access, and engage in praxis-oriented work to support these students.
Organization of the Study
Chapter Two will review key concepts in the literature, including meritocracy and its
presence in higher education, meritocracy and its impact on marginalized groups, defining
disability, overview of disability models, student identity and student development theories and
disability as identity, and meaning making, specifically through the Reconceptualized Model of
Multiple Dimensions of Identity. Chapter Three will examine the methodology for the study,
including the sample population, the participant selection process, instrumentation, the
conceptual frameworks for the interview procedure, data collection, and data analysis. For this
study, a qualitative research approach, the life history method will be utilized.
8

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
The purpose of this study is to explore the narratives and experiences of people with
disabilities in higher education and how they have made meaning of their identity. The research
questions for this study will focus on specific areas to understand the subjects’ worldviews,
belief systems, identity formation, institutional and internal barriers, themes, patterns, and other
insights. In particular, the first research question will focus on exploring how the participants
came to an awareness of their disability and the process in which they came to identify as a
person with a disability. The second question will seek to explore how participants have made
meaning of their identity and what they have learned in light of their experiences and challenges
as a person with a disability. Lastly, the third question research question will exam participants’
understanding of ableism and meritocracy and whether these forces have had any significant
impact on how they perceive their disability identity.
In order to best understand the subjects’ narratives through this study and possible
implications for practitioners and researchers, it is important to examine the bodies of
scholarship and relevant areas of literature in these areas to determine how they may inform and
possibly challenge my own research agenda. The literature review will cover how disability has
been defined, the concept of meritocracy and its influence in higher education, disability models,
and will close with disability and student identity development models. This literature review
will establish the importance of studying and hearing the narratives of students with disabilities
and the role institutions of higher education play in the meaning making process and their need
to support a growing, diverse group of students on their campus that are often underrepresented
and under researched.
9

Disability
Disability has a wide range and includes physical, mental, and psychological disabilities
that can both visible and invisible. Moreover, people with the same diagnosis can have their
conditions manifest in various ways, which leads to different types of disabilities. This is critical
to consider because the way disability is defined or conceptualized has a strong influence on
sociopolitical and institutional structures (Ostiguy et al., 2016). In fact, throughout history, the
experience of people with disabilities has included at least some degree of marginalization. The
implicit belief was that people with disabilities were less than fully human, abnormal, flawed,
and to be pitied (Pelka, 2012). Only with the American with Disabilities Act’s (ADA) legal
definition of disability did change begin to afford individuals with disabilities rights and
protection from discrimination (Jarrow, 1993).
The ADA required higher education institutions to legally provide access and
accommodations for students with disabilities its definition of disability states,
with respect to an individual (A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits
one or more of the major life activities of such individual; (B) a record of such an
impairment; or (C) being regarded as having such an impairment (ADA 42 U.S.C. Sec.
12111, 1990).
In summary, the message of the act highlighted that millions of Americans with disabilities are
full-fledged citizens and, as such, are entitled to legal protections that ensure them equal
opportunity and access to the mainstream of American life” (Lindburg et al., 2014). The ADA
was meant to protect individuals from discrimination in employment opportunities and ensure
access to various social institutions, including higher education (Bowman, 2011).
10

However, after a few years, it became clear that advocates, employers, and educators had
problems interpreting and enforcing the law (Vance, Lipsitz, & Parks, 2014). Moreover, most
courts narrowed disability discrimination suits by strictly applying a demanding standard when
determining if a plaintiff was disabled (Bowman, 2011). For example, federal courts frequently
reasoned that one could not have a learning disability if one had a record of academic success
(Vance et al., 2014). As a result, in 2008, the law was amended to include broad coverage
through the addition of major life activities, including reading, communicating, concentrating,
and thinking, all of which are important to student success (Simon, 2011). This change also
provided more guidance from Congress, the Department of Justice, and the Department of
Education’s Office for Civil Rights to clarify how to interpret who has a disability and
guaranteeing better access and equal opportunities (Vance et al., 2014).
This legislation provided protection and ensured equitable for people with disabilities.
The ADA Amendments Act of 2008 defined disabilities as not purely biological or individual but
considered both social expectations and relationships (Ostiguy et al., 2016). Drawing upon social
constructionist views, disability is defined not merely as a characteristic of an individual, but as
an interaction between a person and the social environments, interactions, and factors around
them (Scotch, 2014). This view situates disability outside of the person and within the physical
environment and attitudes of those who are nondisabled (Asch & Fine, 1988; Braddock & Parish,
2011; Kaplan, 2005). For institutions of higher education, this framework requires individuals to
reorganize their thinking and to look for solutions in the redesign of spaces, materials,
technology, and thought to make them more accessible (Bowe, 2000; Kaplan, 2005; Linton,
1998).
11

How one conceives disability has implications on how we respond to the people with
disabilities barriers face. When disability is seen solely as a medical matter, defined by physical
and mental traits, a common response is to change or fix people but, approached as a social
construct, stigma and marginalization are central factors that impede access and opportunities
(Ostiguy et al., 2016). Although this amendment proved to be a powerful tool for advocating for
disability rights and providing additional access, it is still underutilized and not implemented
uniformly (Vance et al., 2014). In fact, as a matter of equity, institutions of higher education
have much progress to make in adopting practices and cultures to fully enable all students to
succeed (Kezar, 2011).
Meritocracy

A meritocracy can be described as a social system where rewards and a higher status are
distributed on the basis of an individual’s own efforts and ability apart from other factors,
including race, gender, religion, class and other group membership (Sears, Hetts, Sidanius, &
Bobo, 2000). This means that achievement and commensurate rewards are based on one’s
motivation, talent, ability, and effort (McNamee & Miller, 2004). The principles behind
meritocracy are closely tied to the ideals and notion of the American Dream. During the second
half of the nineteenth century, the ideal of the self-made man emerged and became an
increasingly important component of the American Dream (McNamee & Miller, 2014). This idea
imagines America to be place where anyone who works hard can overcome any obstacle and
achieve success regardless of where they start out in life (Hochschild, 1995). For most,
conventional wisdom suggests that meritocracy is a positive system that supports that idea that
one is deserving of one’s reward, be it power, authority, status, or wealth, because of hard work
and effort (Liu, 2011).
12

In sum, meritocracy defines who and how one achieves the American Dream. Within the
context of the United States, associating meritocracy with virtue leads to blaming those who did
not achieve for their individual failure while not accounting for societal structures and masking
social inequities (Kluegel & Bobo, 1993). The educational system is now seen as the primary
mechanism that identifies those who work the hardest and have the most ambition, talent,
intelligence, and perseverance (McNamee & Miller, 2004). This is evident by the fact that there
are more Americans enrolled in higher education today than ever before. As it happens, from
1980 to 2011, the proportion of people 25 years and older who received a bachelor’s degree or
higher increased from 13.4% to 30.4% (McNamee & Miller, 2004).
Meritocracy and Higher Education
Since World War II, colleges and universities have become the gatekeepers of class
position and upward mobility that determines the future stratification of society (Bell, 1973). In
fact, meritocracy has been the predominant ideology in elite American colleges and universities
since the 1950s (Geiger, 2000). Bonilla-Silva (2006) examined key concepts from political
liberalism, specifically the ideology of meritocracy, to highlight how color-blind racism is
perpetuated. Bonilla-Silva explained that, behind meritocracy is the Jeffersonian idea of the
“cream rises to the top” (Bonilla-Silva, 2006, p. 60) which reinforces the notion that rewards and
social mobility depend on how hard one works and inequalities are seen as a result of lack of
effort and ability within a system that is fair to everyone (McNamee & Miller, 2004). As it
pertains to race, he elaborated that there is little concern about the fact that the color of the cream
that usually rises is white (Bonilla-Silva, 2006). As a result, where one ends up socially and
economically is directly related to the effort one puts in to acquiring and applying the necessary
13

skills and attitudes to succeed without much consideration of other factors (Kluegel & Smith,
1986).
Elaborating on this reality, Hochschild (1995) explained that meritocracy is the
understanding that, although the individual must put forth the effort and demonstrate ability, the
larger society must have structural mechanisms in place to reward them (Hochschild, 1995). In
essence, meritocracy works because its principles are embedded in socialization and within every
societal institution, including education. In addition, McNamee and Miller (2004) analyzed the
impact of merit on economic and social outcomes and identified a number of nonmerit factors
that create barriers to mobility. Specifically, they emphasized that meritocracy explains and
legitimizes social inequalities and stratification while reinforcing itself.
Meyer (1987) posited that this occurs in modern rational democracies because
meritocracy is linked to their societies’ view and understanding of individuals’ progress and
worth. Freire (1970) explained how internalized opinions of the oppressor, one of the essential
elements of meritocracy, lead to self-depreciation of the oppressed. He explained people “so
often hear that they're good for nothing, know nothing, and are incapable of learning anything—
that they are sick, lazy, and unproductive—that in the end they become convinced of their own
unfitness” (p. 12). This can be applied to those who work to achieve the American Dream but
come up short and feel the pressures of a meritocratic system.
Nevertheless, these ideas hold true for many and are seen in how American society
values education and believes it to be the key to success as well as the measure and criteria of
one’s worthiness (Lareau, 2003). Hochschild, McNamee, and Miller (1995, 2004) highlighted
that, within an individualistic society, when people are asked to state their reason for success,
they often provide an individualistic answer, specifically hard work. People claim they deserve
14

their success because they worked hard, but they may fail to see that deservedness is not
equivalent to hard work; it has been repeatedly shown that many people who work hard are not
especially successful (McNamee & Miller, 2004).
Liu (2011) examined the connection between the principles of meritocracy and the
University of California system. Liu explained that educational attainment is not always the most
appropriate determination of merit, but, in a meritocracy, it serves as a signaling tool and having
a college degree can greatly improve the chances of moving up the income ladder. However,
while the idea of meritocracy can be seen as positive or even harmless, the idea of equality of
opportunity is far more elusive than it would appear and requires that we duly consider how
power and privilege are often embedded into opportunity structures (Liu, 2011). Nevertheless, in
modern corporate America, with increasingly complex and bureaucratized work structures,
educational credentials have become a critical determinant of an individual’s life chances
(McNamee & Miller, 2004).
Moreover, within a meritocracy, social status is seen as increasingly dependent upon
level of education (Moore, 2004). In fact, most students who enter college hold to a meritocratic
and individual view of their opportunity. Many concluded that their success is based exclusively
on their individual merit and that their guarantee of getting through college and achieving greater
social status is based on their hard work (McNamee & Miller, 2004). Karabel (2005) explained
that meritocracy and education seem to go hand in hand because the legitimacy of the American
social order depends, in good part, on the public’s confidence that the pathways to success
provided by the nation’s leading universities are open to individuals from all walks of life.
However, institutional practices and policies as well as research undermine these ideals.

15

The Effects of Meritocracy in Higher Education on Marginalized Groups
In a time of rapidly changing demographics, post-secondary education is no longer the
domain of the young, able-bodied, Caucasian male, and it is nearly impossible to describe the
typical college student (Burgstahler, 2015). The post-secondary student body of today is more
than half female, includes racial and ethnic minorities, international students, those with low
socioeconomic status, veterans, varying in ages, and other diverse groups (Evans et al., 2016).
According to the American Dream, the educational system provides substantial opportunities for
able and hardworking children from lower status, minority families from different backgrounds
to move up, while requiring children from higher status families to at least prove themselves in
school if they want to maintain their advantages (McNamee & Miller, 2014). Consequently,
having a diverse student body becomes a core value in administrative statements in the mission
and guiding principles of institutions in higher education in order to show a commitment to
public service and social justice (Berry, 2015).
By implication, for diverse, marginalized groups, education becomes the means to reduce
socioeconomic inequality since educational opportunity is apportioned on the basis of individual
merit, which is distributed equally (McNamee & Miller, 2014). The term diversity has now been
promoted as an important priority in education because having a future diverse work force is
seen as a social good. However, the term leaves much to be desired because higher education has
a history of exclusion based on race, class, gender, ability, and other marginalized identities that
is still presently felt (Cohen, Gabriel, & Terrell, 2002). In fact, another view of education sees it
not as a cause but as an effect of social class because the quality of one’s education is directly
proportional of their worth and social class standing, which continues to favor those belonging to
privileged groups (McNamee & Miller, 2014).
16

This phenomenon begins much earlier than in higher education. Currently, children in
high-poverty, segregated neighborhoods face declining returns on education, in effect replicating
the ways that decades of racism dampened education and economic success among African
Americans, Native Americans, Puerto Ricans, and Mexican Americans (Foner, 2005). In fact,
more than 60% of Black and Latino students attend high-poverty schools, compared with 30%
Asians and 18% of whites (Orfield & Lee, 2005). In most of these institutions, teachers are
socially and culturally disconnected from these students and their experiences, and this
disconnect itself in disciplinary actions and zero tolerance policies that contribute to a school-to-
prison pipeline (Evans et al., 2016). Moreover, the combination of over-disciplining and the
overrepresentation of students of color in special education programs raises even more concerns
considering the links between special education and decreased college enrollment and high
school graduation (Oesterreich & Knight, 2010). Moreover, currently, eight states legislated anti-
affirmative action policies in favor of race-neutral policies despite evidence that African
Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans are grossly underrepresented within higher education
(DeSilver, 2014). In a society where educational credentials are highly valued, college
admissions become a gateway to full social membership, they establish the boundaries of the
well-educated and of who is deemed skilled and competent but admission into higher education
continues to evade marginalized students (Berrey, 2015).
Berrey (2015) and Karabel (2005) examined the admissions processes and practices of
elite higher education institutions in relation to meritocracy. They found admissions policies
disproportionately advantage the already advantaged by providing preferences for students based
on alumni legacies or donor potential (Karabel, 2005). Many of these admissions offices do not
consider how more affluent students can afford the infrastructure necessary to produce better
17

academic records, standardized test scores, and extracurricular activities (Evans et al., 2016).
Most students without these types of resources come from racially segregated schools and face
the negative consequences of overcrowded and inadequate facilities, a less rigorous curriculum,
less access to highly qualified teachers, fewer opportunities to take Advanced Placement courses,
and inadequate information about financial aid, college opportunities, and other avenues to well-
paying careers (Carter & Welner, 2013).
Students from marginalized groups who do gain access to institutions of higher education
face additional barriers once on campus. For instance, Black and Latino students are
overrepresented in community colleges and, while these types of colleges are a viable option,
they face poor odds of successfully transferring and completing a four-year degree (Carnevale &
Strohl, 2013). Moreover, it is not uncommon for students of color to report being overwhelmed
by feelings of isolation, experiences of hostility from peers, and the racial microaggressions they
encounter in daily interactions on campus (Sue, 2010, Watkins, 2012). Steele (2010) highlighted
that Black, Latino, and Native American students can internalize negative stereotypes and low
expectations for academic achievement held by others, specifically in institutions of higher
education, in ways that heighten stereotype threat and dampen their performance.
In addition, while meritocracy would see a college degree as a credential that would
provide equitable access and serve as a basis for employment and social rewards, data regarding
these students undermines this premise (McNamee & Miller, 2014). While 25% to 33% of the
gap between earning of Whites and African Americans, Native Americans, and Latinos can be
explained by educational differences, these groups are still less likely to receive equal access to
employment opportunities with comparable educational credentials (Evans et al., 2016). In fact,
Black and Latino employees are not only paid less, but they are also likely to be employed in
18

jobs that do not provide or have limited benefits such as health coverage, paid leave, and
retirement plans (Demos, 2015).
To further elaborate, Iverson (2007), through critical race theory, examined how
working-class minority students at institutions of higher education are at a disadvantage even
when they have worked hard to gain access to a college education. These students are seen as
outsiders, at-risk victims, commodities, and these discourses often produce realities during their
time at these institutions (Iverson, 2007). This shows that it is not merely the amount of hard
work one does; one’s identity or status can be a significant factor in one’s experience. Often,
institutions of higher education will benefit those who already have higher levels of cultural and
social capital who are socialized through, accepted, and valued by the dominant society
(Bourdieu, 1986). For example, a combination of these factors contributes to racially disparate
college graduation rates, with a larger percentage of white students graduating in five years than
black and Latino students from predominantly white institutions, even in instances where black
and Latino students have comparable levels of college readiness and test scores (Carnevale &
Strohl, 2013). Students who lack this sort of normative capital are seen as responsible for a lack
of success in their academics (Yosso, 2005). The underlying perspective is that, if students want
to succeed within a meritocratic environment, it is not the institution that needs to change but the
student. While much of the literature on meritocracy deals with race, it can be applicable to
ability as well.
About 57 million Americans live with disabilities, and this group has become the
country’s largest minority at 18.7% of the general population. Yet, they are often excluded from
diversity initiatives, practices, and policies, including those in higher education (Brault, 2012).
Historically, disability has been viewed as a sign of spiritual depravity, a cause for ridicule, a
19

genetic weakness to be exterminated, something to be hidden away, a source of pity, a
community health problem, and a problem to be fixed (Evans, 2008). Nielsen (2012) examined
how, historically, access to education, employment, marriage, family, transportation, and social
access were negatively affected by a condition seen as pitiful and subhuman. Stigma,
institutionalization, forced sterilization, and restrictions on voting, work, and education are all
part of the history of disability in the United States (Vance et al., 2014). For decades, institutions
of higher education excluded many people with disabilities through discriminatory enrollment
policies and the design of inaccessible courses, facilities, and services (Ostiguy et al., 2016).
Consequently, until recently, there was minimal access and participation of people with
disabilities within higher education.
While disability legislation afforded more access to higher education, people with
disabilities continue to face various barriers. Students with disabilities are less likely to complete
4-year degrees, are more likely to drop out without a degree, and are less likely to pursue
graduate education (Vance et al., 2014). These students often encounter educational expectations
lower than those for their peers who do not have a disability, and they are less prepared to
consider college or the application process (Hitchings, Retish, & Horvath, 2005). Moreover,
students with disabilities disproportionately come from households with low socioeconomic
status and, therefore, choose to not go to college due to concerns about cost and the ability to
repay loans (Cheatham & Elliot, 2013).
Lower higher education participation rates of people with disabilities are associated with
a lack of training and education for transition into college, inaccessibility to college preparatory
programs, a lack of transition programs, or a weak relationship between higher and secondary
education (Fairweather & Shaver, 1990). As a result, fewer students with disabilities succeed to
20

degree completion when compared with non-disabled students (Erickson, Lee, & von Schrader,
2014). Thus, their continued lack of enrollment and degree attainment continues to be an
important area for educators, policymakers, and researchers to understand (Erickson et al., 2014).
However, the principles of meritocracy fail to recognize how these factors affect access and limit
opportunities. A significant gap continues to persist in achievement of postsecondary degrees for
students with disabilities compared to their peers without disabilities (Wagner, Newman,
Cameto, & Levine, 2005). Gallardo and Gibson (2005) emphasized the similarities between
disability and racial identity by highlighting how students in both groups are marginalized and
find themselves as minority outsiders.
Moreover, the discourse on ability is often not included in conversations about diversity
and multicultural practice and education. Institutions of higher education should consider
disability as a diversity issue because focusing on difference, rather than deficit, supports the
social model of disability and other integrated approaches within disability studies that consider
variations such as gender, size, socioeconomic status, race, ethnicity, race, and ability as normal
part of the human experience (Ostiguy et al., 2016). Through this framework, disability can be
viewed as one aspect of a spectrum of human variations and practitioners can work to create
equitable environments (Burgstahler, 2015).
However, due to a lack of current scholarly work, institutional actors struggle to
understand the experiences of students with disabilities in higher education (Barnes & Mercer,
2010; Liasidou, 2014). In fact, practitioners in higher education often lack knowledge about
accommodations, legal requirements, inclusive language, and hidden forms of impairment
(Burgstahler & Moore, 2009). It is imperative for practitioners to understand that the medical
definitions for disability are social constructs and that disabilities are frequently viewed through
21

a stereotypical lens of charity that results in patronizing or paternalistic treatment (Titchkosky,
2007). Unfortunately, the subjective views or social constructions of environmental participants
make up the socially constructed environment (Strange, 2000). This can lead to negative
stereotypes being reinforced within institutions that can negatively impact the experiences of
people with disabilities.
People who live with ability privilege are free to live, study, and work where they wish,
with little regard to their ability to access necessary facilities, programs, and services (Evans et
al., 2016). Within higher education, there is often an assumption of a normative way to do things,
such as move, speak, learn, and society privileges those who carry out these functions as
prescribed and oppresses those who use other methods (Wolbring, 2012). In fact, language used
to describe people with disabilities in higher education indicates that nondisabled people view
them as less than normal (Marks, 1999). Terms such as learning disabled, hearing impaired, or
brain injured suggest that the individual cannot function at the level or in the way that society
expects (Evans & Herriott, 2009).
Therefore, the causes of disability and enablers of ability privilege are environmental
conditions and attitudes, not physical and mental impairments (Wolbring, 2012). With this in
mind, and as enrollment of students with disabilities increases, there is further need for research
regarding this student population and their experiences in institutions that maintain meritocratic
principles. As practitioners it is important to consider the social meanings, symbols, and stigmas
attached to disability identity and to ask how they reinforce systems of exclusion and oppression
that lead to widespread belief that having an able body and mind determines whether one is a
quality human being (Siebers, 2015). Unfortunately, at times, colleges perpetuate the ableist
stigma found in society that people with disabilities lack the knowledge or objectivity to
22

determine their needs, what are the most appropriate or effective accommodations, and how to
best build inclusive communities (Evans et al., 2017).
In sum, the literature shows that merit is only a single factor in a myriad of other non-
merit factors that influence individual outcomes and undermine the basis of meritocracy
(McNamee & Miller, 2014). Contemporary research has failed to understand the commonalities
in the lived experiences of students with varying disabilities in higher education using the
students’ own voices (Evans et al., 2016). Consequently, this study will seek to understand the
experiences, meaning making, and identity development of students with disabilities as a means
to support practitioners as they work to provide better access and help institutions move towards
equity.
Overview of Disability Models
The way disability is conceptualized has major influences on structural, sociopolitical,
and institutional practices. Categorization is the fundamental element of social cognition that
shapes the way people perceive others (Mclean, 2011). Within society, there are varying
perspectives about people with disabilities, and underlying beliefs about disability itself, which
have an impact on the experiences and meaning making process of people with disabilities, both
personally and structurally (Lindburg et al., 2014). Minow (1990) highlighted the connection
between difference and the social stigma that can occur as a result. She explained that
stereotyping and categorization serve as processes that concede power to social definitions,
which makes categorizing difference seem natural and normal (Minow, 1990). Often, these
categories can come with negative attitudes and are seen as an otherness to which people are
assigned on the basis of their perceived difference (Hehir, 2005). Mclean (2005) utilized group
identity development and cognitive dissonance theories to highlight that these conceptions,
23

specifically those related to disability, can be challenged by exposure to the lived experiences of
those who have been categorized. Adding to this, Harro (2013) highlighted that a waking up
moment occurs for many people when they are exposed to a model of disability that is different
from the one they are accustomed to. With this in mind, it is important to understand the various
models that have been influential in shaping how society has and continues to perceive disability.
A number of major models of disabilities are prevalent, continue to evolve, and capture
various of the categorizations and conceptions society has towards people with disabilities. It is
important to understand these models to make sense of the struggles, barriers and experiences
individuals continue to struggle with (Lindburg et al., 2014). Jones (1996) defines common
models that provide frameworks through which disability is defined and viewed. Despite the
advances in disability rights since that work, the publication continues to be used to describe how
disability is perceived within higher education and by society at large (Higbee & Mitchell, 2009).
These include the moral, medical, functional limitations, minority group paradigm, and social
construction models of disability.
The moral model of disability views disability as an unchangeable condition people bring
upon themselves by being immoral or sinning (Covey, 1998). Through this model, disabilities
are often seen as connected to evil spirits and to the devil (Pelka, 2012). This model was widely
spread and accepted in pre-industrial Europe (Mackelprang & Salsgiver, 1999). When people
with disabilities sought help at shelters or other community resources, they were turned away or
ejected because they were seen as dangerous and undeserving of support (Pelka, 2012). By the
18th century, people with disabilities were institutionalized. The policies that cosigned people to
institutions were focused more on protecting society instead of people with disabilities (Pelka,
2012). By the early 19th century, the eugenics movement, closely tied to scientific racism,
24

policies began to segregate and sterilize people seen as “genetically defective” (Krisch, 2014).
From Hitler’s killings to euthanasia in nursing homes and medical neglect within institutions,
people with disabilities, including children, were and continue to be euthanized because of
beliefs that disability is caused by demons and will not result in quality of life (Linburg et al.,
2014).
The medical model of disability draws on scientific frameworks and emerges from the
legacies of institutionalization and eugenics but, rather than killing and sterilizing, the goal is to
treat or fix (Ostiguy et al., 2016). This model dominated society’s view of disability since the
1700s and, while it is well-intentioned and made some improvements in people’s lives, it has
significant setbacks (Vance et al., 2014). The medical model focuses on what people cannot do
and views disability as an individual condition without consideration of social factors (Michalko,
2002). People are understood in a pathological sense and disability is seen as a sickness that
needs to be treated and cured (Hughes, 2002). This perspective results in the medicalization of
disability and reinforces the belief that the disabled need to be monitored and controlled by
medical professionals (Ostiguy et al., 2016) Moreover, people with disabilities are seen as
defective and a benevolent society is to help them overcome their deficits or compensate them
for their loss (Vance et al., 2014). Consequently, this model assumes that the proper response
and approach is to prevent, cure, cover up, and mask the manifestation of conditions (Ostiguy et
al., 2016). Linton (1998) explained that the medicalization of disability casts human variation as
deviance from the norm, as pathological condition, as deficit, and, significantly, as an individual
burden and personal tragedy. In sum, society, in agreeing to assign medical meaning to
disability, colludes to keep the issue within the purview of the medical establishment, to keep it a
25

personal matter and treat the condition and the person rather than treating the social processes
and policies that constrict the lives of those with disabilities (Linton, 1998).
The rehabilitation model of disability combines a medical and individual rights
framework. The model became more predominant in the 1970s as many veterans returned home
with disabilities and sought support. It led to the passage of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
in 1973 and was strongly inspired by the civil rights movement (Ostiguy et al., 2016). It
emphasizes that people should have the right to medical assistance and be able to work alongside
their provider to give input over their treatment options (Ostiguy et al., 2016). This model, much
like the medical model, views disability as a deficiency that needs to be fixed by rehabilitation
through professionals. Essentially, it focuses on the individual and their disabling condition with
an emphasis on the need for rehabilitation (Lindburg et al., 2014). It can often lead to seeing
people as victims whose primary obstacle to social integration is disability (Longmore, 2003).
This results in an overemphasis of deficits and differences, it isolates, marginalizes, alienates,
and negatively affects a sense of self for those with a disability (Lindburg et al., 2014).
Building on models with a deficit framework, the minority group model sees people with
disabilities as a minority group and assumes they have common social experiences (Lindburg et
al., 2014). Progressing the beyond the medical model, this model acknowledges the
environmental, psychological, and social factors that people with disabilities can experience with
an emphasis on power structures, discrimination, and group identification (Scheer, 1994).
Although the model acknowledges the social and psychological consequences of a disability, it
fails to appropriately consider lived experiences or to grapple with the complex interactions of
factors regularly faced (Jones, 1996). Moreover, many people with disabilities may not have a
connection with or identify with the group. Thus, the assumptions that this model makes does not
26

supersede the various and nuanced ways in which individuals and groups define themselves
(Otisguy et al., 2016).
Asch and Fine (1988) developed the social construction model by analyzing people with
and without, disabilities. This model suggests that most beliefs about disability come from
people without disabilities and that making meaning of disability occurs based on their
assumptions and perceptions (Asch & Fine, 1988). When disability is approached as a social
construct, one can recognize stigma and marginalization as impeding the life chances of people
with disabilities (Shakespeare, 2006). Longmore (2003) explained that most of the social thought
and conventional wisdom about disability is distorted and wrong due to being socially
constructed. On an individual basis, this may include everything from school culture to the
standardization demands from bureaucratic institutions of higher education. The study focused
on these aspects of social construction specifically. Asch and Fine (1988) explained that this
model seeks to challenge these assumptions while celebrating the uniqueness of individual
differences and working to bring social change to transform oppressive structures. In sum, it is
the attitudes of persons without disabilities that turn disabilities or limitations into disabling
experiences (Asch & Fine, 1988). While this model focuses on important considerations for
disability, it can easily overlook individual feelings and experiences.
Last is the disability oppression theory or social justice model which emerged in the mid-
2000s from a group of disability activists who were primarily queer, poor, and people of color
(Ostiguy et al., 2016). Castaneda and Peters (2000) explained that this model focuses on
pervasive and systemic discrimination towards people with disabilities and identifies the process
toward power and liberation through equitable access. This model views disabling barriers as not
only physical but also attitudinal, procedural, legal, religious, historical, and linguistic (Vance et
27

al., 2014). This model provides a framework that goes beyond independence to one of
interdependence, in which everyone, with or without disabilities, depend on one another through
interdependent social structures (Castaneda & Peters, 2000). This social justice lens encourages
celebrating physical and mental differences and naming the ways in which people are
categorized and oppressed according to disability and other social identities (Evans et al., 2010).
The goal is to escape the shortcomings of previous models and to create truly transformative
justice and liberation practices (Ostiguy et al., 2016).
These six models that help categorize and define disability continue to have an impact on
how people with disabilities are understood. These models and their frameworks manifest in
institutional, cultural, individual, and internalized levels (Ostiguy et al., 2016). Out of these
models, the social justice or disability oppression theory model seems to lead professionals in
higher education to view the individual through a social lens, taking into account the person’s
experience with their environment (Lindburg et al., 2014). Since disability is defined by
environmental, structural, and cultural factors, it is critical to hone in on people’s experiences to
understand how it affects their lives and perspectives (Jacoby, 1993).
Students with Disabilities in Higher Education
Within higher education, the enrollment of students with disabilities, once rarer, has now
increased and makes up 11% of student bodies nationally (National Center for Education
Statistics, 2013). In fact, in the last 25 years, these students have comprised the largest group
increase in enrollment (Hall & Belch, 2000). While disability legislation afforded more access to
higher education, there are still various barriers that limit opportunities. While the definition and
interpretation of legal definitions are important, for practitioners, it is equally important to
understand the experiences of college students and the fact that they come with an array of
28

diagnosed, undiagnosed, acknowledged, and unknown abilities and disabilities (Evans, 2016;
Simon, 2011). For example, one student may have extensive experience with a disability, another
may acquire a disability while in college, and yet another may learn of their impairment that had
not previously been identified (Evans, 2016).
The transition from high school to college can be difficult for most students, but it is
particularly difficult for those with disabilities. During high school, students receiving
accommodations are supported by multidisciplinary teams, including parents, teachers,
counselors, psychologists, therapists, administrators, and other staff, who available for planning
and interventions (Hadley, 2011). However, this type of environment and support is not available
once they transition into higher education. Entering college, students must adjust intellectually
and socially to the setting, and this adjustment requires a degree of physical and emotional
separation and detachment from significant people who were important during high school,
along with accepting expectations and rules that come with college (Schlossberg, Lynch, &
Chickering, 1989; Tinto, 1993). For students with disabilities, transitioning into higher education
comes with additional responsibilities to access campus life such as having to self-identify,
provide documentation of a disability, self-advocate to instructors, and participate in services to
support academic progress (Hadley, 2011). Moreover, students face the challenges of not
knowing how their disability will affect them in college, including navigating new types of
testing situations, classroom structures, social interactions, and the need to organize new
thoughts, information, and tasks (Janiga & Costenbader, 2002; Milsom & Hartley, 2005).
Before setting foot on campus, students face the difficult decision of self-identifying as
having a disability (Palombi, 2000). Since the fit of the person and environment, person-
environment congruence, is predictive of an individual’s attraction to and stability within an
29

environment, it is important to have an awareness of institutions (Strange & Banning, 2000).
However, due to disability stigma and the desire to fit in, as well as the difficulty navigating an
unfamiliar bureaucracy, students often choose to not disclose or enroll in support services,
thereby depriving themselves of resources that are critical for academic success (Ostiguy et al.,
2016). Research shows that a lack of awareness, negative attitudes, lack of allies, and antiquated
policies and practices lead to students not disclosing due to fear of embarrassment, retribution,
marginality, and failure (Olney & Brockleman, 2003; Tripoli, Mellard, & Kurth, 2004). Often, a
lack of these supports as well as knowledge and understanding of student rights and
responsibilities are consistently identified as primary factors contributing to difficulties
(Webster, 2004). For students who do identify with a disability, securing accommodations
requires extra effort beyond that required of other students simply to gain access (Burgstahler,
2015).
By law, for students to receive reasonable accommodations, they must initiate the process
by disclosing and providing third-party documentation of disability (Wolanin & Steele, 2004).
An accommodation occurs when an adjustment or modification is made to a product or
environment so that it is accessible (Burgstahler, 2015). Generally, this documentation provides
a clear diagnosis and the functional impact that the disability will have on college-related
activities (Madaus, 2009). Usually, disability support offices are responsible for guiding and
guaranteeing the accommodation process. During this process, staff meet with students and have
detailed conversations about their disability, academic goals, experiences, and pertinent history
to determine reasonable accommodations. Using documentation and a student’s self-report, staff
members will make accommodation and recommendations, which are usually presented to
faculty in the form of a notice or letter (Cory, 2011). While the availability of reasonable
30

accommodations and support serve as a positive force against ableism in institutions of higher
education, stigma, difficulty with access, and inequities still exist (Brabazon, 2015). For instance,
what a reasonable accommodation is becomes a judgment call that varies by student and case
(Cory, 2011). Often underlying the qualifying procedures is an implicit assumption that students
seek to exploit the system to obtain an unfair advantage (Ostiguy et al., 2016).
Campbell (2009) notes that ableism equates able-bodieness with normalcy and, by
contrast, makes disability abnormal, dependent, and deficient. As a result, members of
stigmatized groups may want to separate themselves from the group to protect themselves from
the difficulty of this type of stigma. For students with disabilities, experiences of ableism can be
experienced through peers, faculty and family. Connors and Stalker (2007) highlight that, when
individuals acquire a disability at birth or at a young age, parents become the most important
factor on how they come to understand their condition. For many parents, however, disability is
seen as the defect that must be cured or eliminated if their child is to be fully functional as a
human being (Siebers, 2008). Moreover, Samuels (2003) highlighted that perceived negative
social consequences can prohibit individuals from requesting accommodations or wanting to
identify with a disability. In fact, in a study conducted by Baker et al. (2012), about 25% of
students with disabilities agreed or strongly agreed that they were hesitant or afraid of talking
with their professors about accommodations and one-third felt that their professors would think
differently or less of them if they knew they had a disability.
Jung (2011) examined how women with disabilities who requested accommodation often
met suspicion and resistance. Moreover, faculty and staff may follow the mandates of the law but
may not understand how to support students or feel as if their accommodations are not
reasonable or affect the integrity of their classes (Jensen et al., 2004; Salzberg et al., 2002). In
31

fact, faculty members who support inclusion may challenge specific requests for
accommodations based on their own judgments on what needs are legitimate for the sake of
academic freedom and fairness (Ostiguy et al., 2016). McCarthy (2011) highlighted that the idea
and question of fairness sheds light on a system of equals, fair or not fair, but that this does not
appropriately reflect the needs of individuals. Webster (2004) and Schutz (2002) highlighted
some of the challenging experiences students with disabilities face in postsecondary institutions
were connected to instructors’ lack of skills, knowledge, inadequate resources, biases or negative
feelings and attitudes, and lack of awareness regarding rights and responsibilities, which
contribute to students’ low-esteem.
A number of studies emphasized how students and their identification with a disability
can play a major in their educational outcomes and experiences. Connor (2011) found college
students were likely to excel academically when they accepted their identity with disabilities
because it led to timely and appropriate accommodations. Moreover, in a qualitative study,
Garner (2008) highlighted that successful transition into higher education was helped by students
who experienced general education curriculum, had explicit academic goals, and self-identified
with a disability. Webster (2004) explained how self-awareness and awareness of others
contributed to successful college experiences at a 4-year institution. Adding to the research,
Banks (2013) examined how major factors, specifically a lack of faculty awareness, self-identity,
and self-advocacy were significant barriers to positive experiences. Consequently, due to stigma,
many of these students did not disclose or seek help due to fear of losing established social
circles until they experienced academic failure. Access through modifications and
accommodations are measures that improve inclusion, but attitudes that create welcoming
environments are critical and significant contributors as well (Kalivoda, 2009).
32

Student with disabilities and their overall perception of their campus climate has major
impacts on their behavior, satisfaction, persistence, and ultimate success in higher education
(Strange, 2000). Usually, within educational institutions, services can reinforce negative
assumptions about disability by focusing on students cannot do rather than on what they can do,
which can lead to very limited support (Ostiguy et al., 2016). Darling (2013) emphasizes that the
understanding of social reactions to disability is an important, and perhaps the most important,
factor in understanding disability identity and orientation. Throughout their life, students with
disabilities face unique challenges like addressing stigma within their institutional settings,
managing mental health and other conditions, loneliness, social isolation, exclusion from
academic opportunities, limited career-related activities, and denial of accommodations
(Gruttadaro & Crudo, 2012). These challenges and experiences within educational institutions
can have an impact on whether students identify as a person with a disability and to what degree
they are willing to do so. The singular focus of the individual accommodation approach may
have seemed like best practice when students with disabilities, especially those with invisible
disabilities, were only a small, and often unseen cohort of college students (Evans et al., 2017).
However, as an increasing number of students with disabilities enter college, providing
accessible campus environments must be institutional priorities (Hayashi & May, 2011).
Student Disability Identity Development
Approximately 15% of the world’s population, or one billion people, live with a
disability (World Health Organization, 2018). Like other social identities, it is often thought of as
a trait, but, in fact, it is a social categorization defined and reinforced by a myriad of institutional
and cultural factors (Johnson, 2013). It is constructed in the sense that social forces cause injury
and illness and in the sense that society’s failure to account for a wide range of bodies and minds
33

creates barriers to full participation (Wendell, 1996). This means that disability itself is defined
by environmental, structural, and cultural factors and, often, how one interacts with these has
implications as to how this identity is experienced (Vance et al., 2014). This is specifically
relevant when an individual feels like this identity has been ascribed to them.
Johnstone (2004) explains that ascribed labels of disability, when not claimed by the
individual, can cause some individuals to experience shame. Due to this identity category being
linked to the medical model, where power and control over those with disabilities are held by
nondisabled medical personnel, there is stigma associated with disability and people attempt to
hide their impairments and experience embarrassment or negative feelings towards the identity
(Evans et al., 2017). Stigma around disabilities is a societal reaction to individuals who are
viewed as different or less than because they do not conform to a society’s norm regarding
behavior or appearance (Longmore, 2003). For example, television and movies and other media
portray people with disabilities in stereotypical ways such as being pitiful, evil, frightening, and
with overexaggerated conditions and such portrayals, in turn, reinforce societal views (Darling,
2013).
Moreover, the multiple identities within the disability community, including physical,
cognitive, and psychological, create a vast spectrum of individualized experiences (Lindburg et
al., 2014). Given the significant number of individuals with disabilities, it is important to
understand that people have different responses and feelings towards this identity. An individual
may experience an impairment that qualifies as a disability but be reluctant to identity as a
person with disability. On the other hand, someone can ambiguously meet the legal standard yet
have a strong sense of disability as their identity (Ostiguy et al., 2016).
34

Within the context of higher education, several student development theories are
beneficial for understanding disability identity development. Disability identity development
models seek to explain how people with apparent and nonapparent impairments come to
understanding themselves in relation to the concept of disability (Evans et al., 2017). Evans
(2008) highlights that a person’s social identities and their understanding of their disability are
influenced by the national, geographical, and cultural environments. These contexts can change
and, thus, cause identity to change as well. Disability identity is fluid and personally constructed,
capable of changing and shifting based on particular educational and social contexts, where
individuals may feel more or less aware of their disabilities (Nasir & Cooks, 2009).
Troiano (2003) focused on students with learning disabilities and how they made
meaning of their college experience by looking at four main properties: the student’s definition,
orientation, condition, and impact of the learning disability. The study highlighted that, when
students with learning disabilities fail to meet the reasonable expectations of faculty and staff, it
is important that college and university personnel reflect on the conditions that shaped the
students’ development and experiences (Troiano, 2003). In addition, Gibson (2006) developed
the disability identity development model to understand individuals who have had lifelong
disabilities and learn from their experiences navigating their identity. People can move through
three stages, including passive awareness, realization, and acceptance, throughout their lives and
where they are on these stages helps understand identity salience.
Two other theories, not specific to disabilities, are Schlossberg’s transition theory (1995)
and theory of marginality and mattering (1989). To fully understand what a transition means to
an individual, there must be an understanding of the nature, background, and impact of the
transition (Schlossberg, Waters, & Goodman, 1995). By understanding four major factors,
35

specifically one’s situation, self, support, and strategies, a transition can be better understood and
better supported. This theory can be helpful to practitioners when applied to students with
disabilities who are transitioning into higher education. In addition, the theory of marginality and
mattering focuses on the marginalization that occurs when students enter new and uncertain
roles. During these situations, students do not feel like they fit in and have strong feelings of
depression, insecurity, and self-consciousness (Schlossberg, 1989). Schlossberg (1989)
emphasized the role colleges must take in helping students feel like they matter to others and the
importance campuses have on students’ experience, wellness, and academic success.
Lastly, Abes, Jones, and McEwen‘s (2007) model of multiple dimensions of identity
(MMDI) emphasizes the importance of context in the meaning-making process by balancing
individual agency with institutional power. This research focuses on what relationships students
perceive among their personal and social identities and how they come to perceive them as they
do (Abes et al., 2007). Abes et al. (2007) embraced the postmodern approach of understanding
identities as a variable in meaning across contexts, mutually constructing, and performative as
well as recognizing the concurrent, nonhierarchical experience of multiple identities (Butler,
1999; Knight, 2002; Abes, 2009). Moreover, the MMDI offers the integration of self-authorship
framework, the process of meaning making, with critical paradigms, specifically social, political,
and historical contexts. This model highlights the importance of college students playing a role
in the construction of their own identities. However, while the MMDI was a breakthrough in
student development theory, it was limited in its focus on only one domain of development,
specifically identity development (Abes & Jones, 2013). Recognizing this, Abes, Jones, and
McEwen (2007) sought to develop a more holistic approach by not only focusing on identity but
also cognitive and interpersonal development. They developed the reconceptualized model of
36

multiple dimensions of identity (RMMDI), which considers both multiple social identities and
multiple domains of development by inserting a meaning-making filter between context and
identity (Abes, Jones, & McEwen, 2007).
Meaning Making and the Reconceptualized Model of Multiple Dimensions of Identity
In assessing meaning making and revising the MMDI, two theories helped create the
necessary framework. First, Kegan (1994) defined meaning making structures as a number of
assumptions that determine how an individual views and arranges their life experiences,
including how one makes sense and interprets the world. In fact, a person must actively interpret
life through meaning making structures because no feeling, experience, thought, or perception
are independent from any meaning making context (Kegan, 1982). Adding to Kegan, Magolda
(2009) explained that meaning making is a process that encompasses three interconnected
domains of development, specifically the cognitive, interpersonal, and intrapersonal. The
cognitive is based on how individuals construct knowledge, the interpersonal is how people
define their relationships, specifically how they define themselves in relation to or through
others, and the intrapersonal that highlights how individuals understand their sense of self,
including their personal and social identity (Abes & Jones, 2013). Moreover, Magolda (2001)
emphasized the importance of self-authorship, which allows individuals to develop their own
way for making sense of various external influences that impact them while drawing on their
own internal system. Self-authorship is “the ability to construct knowledge in a contextual world,
an ability to construct an internal identity separate from external influences, and an ability to
engage in relationships without losing one’s internal identity” (p. 12). These two theories and
their focus on meaning making from a constructivist perspective, grounded the RMMDI.
37

Figure 1. Development towards self-authorship.
Jones and McEwen (2000) elaborated on the MMDI and its application with the
development of the reconceptualized model of multiple dimensions of identity (RMMDI). This
model serves to examine the relationship between identity saliency, social contexts, and the
meaning making process of individuals. Understanding this relationship becomes “a means to
provide a richer portrayal of not only what relationships students perceive among their personal
and social identities, but also how they come to perceive them as they do” (Abes & Jones, 2013,
p. 13). The focus of the RMMDI is the connection between one’s meaning making capacity and
relationships among students’ multiple social identities (Abes & Jones, 2013). The model
highlights how contextual influences, such as family, social norms, friends, or campus climate
filter through ones meaning making capacity (or filter as seen in Figure 2) and its impact on an
individual’s multiple identities. How context moves through the filter depends on the
permeability of the filter, and the filter depends on the complexity of the person’s meaning
making capacity (Abes & Jones, 2013). In essence, the more easily contextual influences move
through the filter, the stronger the impact on a person’s perception of their identities. Abes and
38

Jones (2013) highlight that no matter how complex a person’s meaning making capacity may be,
it is impossible to stop systemic forms of oppression from impacting the identity saliency for an
individual. This assertion is important for this study when examining meritocracy and external
factors and their influence on how students with disabilities make meaning of their own
experiences, narratives, and identity. In my estimation, the RMMDI represents the best practice
for understanding disability identity due to its focus on self-authorship and recognizing that
individual students play a critical role in constructing their own identities. `

Figure 2. Reconceptualized model of multiple dimensions of identity
Conclusion
College students have the constant struggle of making sense of their identity amidst
several outside influences and factors that shape their experience. Magolda (2006) explains that a
person can begin to develop their own internal voice, but it can easily be drowned out by the
much louder noise of external influences that shape how they perceive knowledge, relationships,
and identity. Consequently, for educators and practitioners, it has become critical to understand
how students make meaning of their multiple, intersecting identities in order to enhance, deepen,
39

and cultivate environments that are inclusive and optimal for growth (Patton et al., 2016). Abes
et al. (2007) highlighted the complexity involved with students counting an identity as social or
core to who they were and why they felt this way. This study hopes to answer the important why
to this question, specifically for students with disabilities with a focus on self-authorship. As
mentioned earlier, the RMMDI offers a complex connection between meaning making and self-
authorship and critical paradigms, specifically social, political, and historical contexts, and
intersectionality (Abes et al., 2007). Patton et al. (2016) emphasizes that further studies need to
press forward with holistic approaches to understanding identity in the context of interpersonal
and cognitive development and in relation to multiple dimensions of identity to provide
empirical evidence to support effective programs and services in higher education.
The literature on these models highlights that the meaning-making and identity-formation
process offers a viable opportunity for conducting this type of analysis. Understanding the
development of social identities, particularly how students of different social identities learn
about themselves and one another, is critical for educators (Patton et al., 2016). McIntosh (2012)
explained that “listening to the testimonies of others allows us to know ourselves even better, to
know others better, and recognize the matrices of power we are all in” (p. 203). The hope of this
study us is to better understand the experiences and meaning making process of students with
disabilities in order to inform practitioners and identify barriers and inequities within higher
education.

40

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
The previous chapter summarized several key studies, theories, and terms that are
foundational to this study. This chapter is an overview of the methods utilized when conducting
this study and analyzing the data. Life histories of students with disabilities were conducted
through semi-structured interviews. The participants’ narratives and reflections served as data to
examine the interaction between disability identity understanding and formation, the meaning
making process, and meritocracy in higher education. This study will add to the existing body of
knowledge related to disability identity consciousness, formation, and development and its
relation to experiences in higher education, specifically in meritocratic environments. It is my
hope that this study will help higher education professionals, on all levels, listen and learn from
the experiences of students with disabilities in order to reflect on their own identities and
navigate the process of becoming stronger advocates through understanding, accountability, and
empowerment.
To review, the purpose of this study is to understand the meaning-making experiences of
students with disabilities and how these interact with their contexts, social identity salience, and
core identity valued characteristics. From an institutional perspective, this will help adapt to the
belief that the person who experiences disability is the best person to understand his or her
circumstances and lead to more equitable access. On a practitioner level, understanding the
narratives of students with disabilities, will help promote praxis-oriented engagement focused on
becoming institutional change agents that can promote ability equity and accountability in higher
education. This qualitative and inductive study is a means for exploring and understanding the
meaning individuals and a group ascribe to a social and human problem through purposeful
sampling (Creswell, 2009; Merriam 2009; Patton, 2014).
41

The study is guided by three research questions:
1. How did these college students come to identify themselves as a person with a disability
and what role did their social and educational surroundings have in this process?
2. Through their experiences and challenges, what have these college students come to learn
about their identity and how have they, specifically, made meaning of their identity as a
person with disability in light of these events?
3. What, if any, tenets of meritocracy and ableism have these students internalized or
contested in their meaning making process in an age of academic meritocracy within
higher education and what impact does this have on how they view their disability
identity?
Qualitative Inquiry
The need for a deeper understanding of the lived experiences of students with disabilities,
how they make meaning of their experiences, and the impact of their narratives and
environments in their identity development, makes a qualitative approach most applicable for
this study. Qualitative methods focus on the processes and impact of context on the individual, as
well as identifying the chronology of events occurring within a setting (Miles & Huberman,
1984). This provides the ability to produce more detailed, nuanced, and comprehensive analysis
of data from different interpretations. Merriam (2009) highlights the fact that qualitative research
breaks from positivist or post-positivist paradigms in its assertion that there is more than one
knowable reality. This claim is useful in this study when examining the narratives of the
participants and gaining insight into their view of the world around them.
Given the nature of this study and its attempt to understand the meaning making process
of students with disabilities, a narrative inquiry approach was chosen. Narrative inquiry draws on
42

constructivism, an interpretivist theory rooted in the belief that multiple realities exist and that
these are co-constructed between the researcher and participants through dialogue (Denzin &
Lincoln, 2000; Lather, 2007). Coles (1989) emphasizes that “one’s story, one’s narrative, is what
we all carry with us on this trip we take, and we owe it to each other to respect our stories and
learn from them” (p. 30). The purpose of narrative inquiry then is to understand the wholeness of
the human experience through data collected in the form of stories (Clandinin & Connelly,
2000). Moreover, given the focus of this study on both the individual as well as the community
level, a narrative approach is helpful to capture how the meaning making process occurs through
and is impacted by both. Reissman (2008) explains that while personal stories are certainly
prevalent, a narrative goes beyond the individual because, as these individual experiences are
constructed, so too are those of identity groups and communities. To further elaborate, Evans et
al. (2016) explains that “how individuals and groups making meaning of the world they occupy
is vital to understanding social identity, making constructivism a worldview and method
appropriate to explore these ideas” (p. 235). Also, this way of conducting research breaks from
the positivist tradition and emphasizes the construction of knowledge rather than its discovery
and acknowledging that these individual constructions are rooted in historical and sociocultural
contexts (Schwandt, 2001). In sum, narrative inquiry is consistent with the belief that one’s story
and identity are intertwined (Chase, 1996). Thus, narrative inquiry provides a means for students
to tell and process their stories, with consideration to their social contexts, which can serve as a
source of empowerment, specifically in this particular study.
Life Histories
The narrative inquiry for this study will be done through a life histories approach, which
focuses on the words and recounting of the person telling the story. In this approach, the
43

researcher engages in a close interpretation of the narrative data in order to make meaning of the
stories collected (Reissman, 2008). The life histories approach has been utilized by multiple
researchers as a methodology to highlight cultures, hidden narratives, and impact on educational
practice (Ball & Goodson, 1985; Bertaux & Kohli, 1984; Cole & Knowles, 2001). The life
history approach is derived from ethnographic field methods in anthropology to tell the story of a
key informant who is either representative of their culture and is able to discuss their life in order
to provide a better understanding to others of that culture (De Chesnay, 2014). This method aims
to document a person’s life or a significant part of life as narrative through the telling and
recording of one’s experience (Plummer, 2001). Despite the life history being a reconstruction,
the personal narrative is a very helpful way to gain a perspective on, understanding of, and
comprehend the experiences of individuals (De Chesnay, 2014).
The life history is a constructed account, a representation of life as lived, which is then
interpreted and reconstructed in a historical moment by the informant (Denzin, 1989). Atkinson
(1998) explains that, through life histories, important personal truths are shared, a better
understanding of one’s life and psychological trajectory is developed, and bonds are created
between the storyteller and the researcher. Knowles (1993) emphasizes that life histories
“provide backbones to some of the most persuasive and illuminating anthropological and
sociological research of this century” (p.70). The life histories approach is seen as part science
and part art. As science, a researcher is be objective in data collection and relaying the story as
accurately as possible and, at the same times, the researcher interprets the story within the
context in which that person lives (Atkinson, 1998). In this approach, the researchers make an
effort to respect the owners of the life history, those telling the story, through direct quotes, while
interpreting the responses in light of the focused research questions (De Chesnay, 2014).
44

Moreover, Atkinson (1998) recommends an informal approach with open-ended questions and
comments to evoke in-depth responses and cultivate an interviewing atmosphere that brings out
the individual’s life experiences and their deeper reflection on their life. This approach will
prohibit from the researcher or questions getting in the way of the storyteller’s ultimate control
over their history and what goes into their story and how it is said (Atkinson, 1998). Lastly, from
a disabilities studies perspective, Darling (2013) explains that there is a significant need, in
smaller scale qualitative studies, to conduct in-depth interviews that can reveal the interactional
histories of individuals with disabilities. This would enable studies to reveal the various turning
points in a person’s life that may lead to identity development and changes, specifically as they
interact with significant people, places, and situations. The findings of such studies would
significantly contribute to the knowledge of identity development and would have practical
applications in designing interventions to promote positive experiences for people with
disabilities (Darling, 2013).
Site and Population
This qualitative study is inductive and utilizes purposeful sampling in order to obtain
information rich cases (Patton, 2014). Purposeful sampling is based on the assumption that the
researcher seeks to discover, gain insight, and understanding and, therefore, must select a sample
from which the most can be learned (Merriam, 2009). Patton (2014) emphasizes that it makes
most sense to select “people on the basis of their potential manifestation or representation of
important theoretical constructs” (p. 238). Consequently, for this study, the selection-criteria that
drove the sampling were identification as a student with disability, completion of academic
education (K-12) in the United States, and status as a full-time student. By applying these
criteria, my hope was to limit the sample in order to include the most information-rich cases.
45

These cases are those from which a researcher and others can learn a great deal about issues that
are of central importance to the purpose of the research (Patton, 1990). Wong (2008) emphasizes
the importance of purposeful sampling by explaining that external validity can result from
samples due to the theoretically driven selection of individuals, which in turn can improve the
understanding of the how and why of processes, which is pertinent to this study.
To find study participants and to set up interviews, I requested the assistance of a staff
member who assisted with an outreach communication plan. An email correspondence was sent
out through an administrator at the college to solicit participation for the study. This email
outlined general information about the study and provided my contact information for students to
directly reach me to further inquire or to sign up as a participant. Prior to an in-person interview,
a phone screen was conducted to ensure that students met the selection criteria established for the
study. After the screenings, 5 out of the 15 students who contacted me met the criteria and were
willing to be interviewed. All of the interviews for the study were done in one of the college’s
proctoring exam rooms located in the office of student affairs. This space offered a quiet
environment and provided participants with a sense of familiarity and privacy to share their
experiences.
Research Site
The site for this study will be referred to by a pseudonym: The College. The College is a
highly selective, private college in an urban community in the United States. The College is a
predominantly White institution, with some racial and socioeconomic diversity, and has a student
undergraduate population of a little under 20,000 students. I chose this population due to it being
a very selective institution of higher education, with a smaller student population in comparison
to public institutions in the area, and for it having a slightly higher rate of registered students
46

with disabilities in comparison to other local, regional institutions of higher education. I believe
that an intersection of these characteristics would allow for more in-depth data, specifically when
considering contextual influences, the campus climate, facets of meritocracy, and the meaning
making process of identity.
Instrumentation, Data Collection, and Confidentiality
For this study, in-depth interviews will be guided by Atkinson’s (1998) and Seidman’s
(2006) recommendations. At the root of in-depth interviewing is the interest in understanding the
lived experience of other people and the meaning that they make out of that experience
(Siedman, 2006). The interview protocol was broken up into three sections focused on specific
questions. The first section focused on the participants formative years including family, culture,
significant events, community, school and social influences that shed light on participants
identities and allow the ability to gather rich data for analysis. Next, the second section focused
on their past and current experiences, specifically relating to their disabilities and significant
events that impacted how they have come to make sense of their identity. Lastly, the third section
will allow participants to reflect on the idea of ableism and meritocracy and its pervasiveness on
their academic experiences and to gauge its impact on their identity as a student with a disability.
The first section of the interview protocol will help answer the first research question. The
second section of the interview protocol will assist with exploring and answering the second
research question. Lastly, the third section will help answer the last and final research question.
The interview protocol consisted of both primary questions as well as probes to get more in-
depth data.
During the interview process, I introduced myself, explained the purpose of the study,
and provided detailed information on all possible risks. Each interview required one session of
47

approximately 1.5 hours. Data were collected between October and December of 2019 in the
proctoring room at The College’s Office of Student Affairs. I then proceeded to have participants
review the IRB information form and explained the confidential nature of the study and data
collection process. This procedure was done for every participant in the study. I asked each
participant about having permission to audio record the conversation and was granted approval
by each to use a digital audio recorder. All interviews were recorded and documented using
handwritten field notes, noting points of interest during the interviews. Interviews ranged from
55 minutes to 124 minutes. After completing the interviews, they were transcribed and sent to
the participants for verification and validation of accuracy. None of my participants provided any
revisions or edits of their transcript.
The study took great lengths to mask the participants’ and institutions’ names in my
writing, specifically through pseudonyms, to protect confidentiality. Upon requesting permission
to audio record, all participants were told that they did not need to consent and could opt out of
any and all portions of the study. Handwritten field notes were stored in a locked file cabinet in
my office and digital files and recording were kept on a password-protected computer and
external hard drive. These data sets will be kept for 36 months after the study completion and
then will be destroyed.
Data Analysis
Patton (2014) and Merriam (2009) recommend that the data analysis occur
simultaneously with data collection. This process allows one to process the collected data in
order to inform or make adjustment to the approach and engagement with the study participants.
Moreover, this can lead to new insights, questions, changes in data collection, and even the entire
process. This allows the data to narrow or sharpen the investigative process, specifically through
48

the use of probing questions to solicit further reflection from participants (Merriam, 2009). I
heeded this recommendation, and, during the data collection and analysis, I reviewed transcripts
through an inductive-comparative process. This process included sorting data into analytical
categories that are linked to the research questions (Merriam, 2009).
My first analysis of data occurred during the data collection process, the second occurred
after all my interviews with the participants were completed, and the third analysis focused on a
thematic analysis. While this third analysis focused on particular word choices, thematic analysts
generally do not attend to language, form, or interaction but, instead, primarily focus on “what”
is said, rather than “how” (Reissman, 2008). Moreover, during this process I conducted a process
of open, analytical, and axial coding (Merriam, 2009). This process allowed many units of data
that were coded into categories or themes using Merriam’s (2009) five guidelines for inductive
categories: responsive to the purpose of the research, exhaustive, mutually exclusive, sensitizing,
and conceptually congruent. Merriam (2009) emphasizes that ideological perspectives such as
those grounded in feminist theory, critical theory, postmodernism, and others can be used to
interpret life history narratives and, thus, the process of coding was informed by the data along
with theoretical framework of the study.
Summary
This chapter presented the methodology and method for conducting research in this study
and the rationale. Specifically, the research design, sample and population, instrumentation,
confidentiality, data collection, and data analysis. Chapter Four presents the results offered by
the data. Lastly, in chapter five findings are discussed as they relate to the research question and
sub-questions and the implications of this study on research and practice.

49

CHAPTER FOUR: ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS
Introduction
This chapter provides an analysis of data from the current study that aims to address the
research questions regarding understanding the meaning-making experiences of students with
disabilities and how it interacts with their contexts, social identity salience, and core identity
valued characteristics. Three research questions guided this study:
1. How did these college students come to identify themselves as a person with a disability
and what role did their social and educational surroundings have in this process?
2. Through their experiences and challenges, what have these college students come to learn
about their identity and how have they, specifically, made meaning of their identity as a
person with disability in light of these events?
3. What, if any, tenets of meritocracy and ableism have these students internalized or
contested in their meaning making process in an age of academic meritocracy within
higher education and what impact does this have on how they view their disability
identity?
I used a semi-structured, reflexive interview protocol to gather data from five undergraduate
students with disabilities. I coded the data gathered during these interviews and findings were
organized based on triangulation. This allowed the emergent findings to be structured into three
primary areas, including awareness and concept of disability identity, experiences with a
disability, and the meaning making process of disability identity, ableism and meritocracy. In
order to contextualize the findings, I organized this chapter by introducing the subjects through
biographical portraits and highlighting key findings and themes by research question. Chapter 5
will follow and identify implications for practice and areas for future research.
50

Biographical Portraits
Using the life histories approach, I conducted five ethnographic interviews that covered
three specific phases. The first phase included questions focused on participants’ formative years
and life experiences, including family, culture, significant events, and community and social
influences and how these things impacted their view of ability. The second phase focused on past
and current experiences around schooling, specifically relating to identity formation and their
disability. Lastly, the third phase, allowed participants to reflect on the idea of meritocracy and
its pervasiveness in their academic experiences and its impact on how they make meaning of
their identity as a student with a disability. These interviews were conducted at a highly
selective, private college in an urban community in the United States. The College has a smaller
undergraduate population and a slightly higher rate of registered students with disabilities in
comparison to other local, regional institutions.
The five participants represent the breadth of the institution and include men and women
of different races and ethnicities, socioeconomic backgrounds, life experiences, and varying in
ages. As explained in Chapter 3, purposeful sampling was utilized and the selection-criteria that
drove the sampling were identification as a student with disability, completion of academic
education (K-12) in the United States, and status as a full-time student. This section of the
chapter aims at providing brief biographical portraits of each participant, offering insight about
their identity development and meaning making development across their life span related to
meritocracy, disability, and other topics that will enhance the reading and findings of this study.
Jordan
Jordan is an Asian-American male, eighteen years old, first year student, and is from
Northern California. Jordan is an only child and the son of immigrants from China. Jordan’s
51

parents migrated to the United States and were able to find employment in the medical field.
Jordan described his parents as extremely hardworking and having a strong belief in education.
He recalled growing up in a close-knit community, in an affluent neighborhood, and having
access to a number of educational tools and resources. He explained, “whenever I needed help, I
knew that my parents were going to get it for me. In fact, they got it for me when I didn’t want it.
I had tutoring, help from teachers, and was in an afterschool program that focused on college
readiness”. Jordan recalled being an “anxious and socially awkward kid”. He reported that he
was diagnosed with Attention deficit disorder (ADD) and social anxiety disorder during
elementary school but does not recall exactly when. Jordan had no memory of ever being told
that he had academic accommodations or a disability until he was a junior in high school. He
remembered his parents often meeting with his teachers and getting support but explained that
this was a normal occurrence in the private schools he attended.
As a first-year student, Jordan is currently receiving academic accommodations and
reported that they have been a big help for him, specifically with the number of STEM courses
he is taking. He is majoring in biology, expects to join the medical field like his parents, and
wants to become a pediatrician. When considering where to attend college, Jordan stated wanting
to attend the College because his school counselor suggested that it would be an environment
that could offer the resources and support that he was accustomed to receiving. Jordan stated that
his parents check in on him regularly. He explained, “my parents still worry about me. My mom
calls me every day to make sure everything is fine. They wanted to hire a personal tutor for me
this semester but I told them that things were okay for now”. During his intake for
accommodations, Jordan was able to learn about his disability and diagnosis for the first time but
has still not discussed this with his parents.
52

Jessie
Jessie is a Mexican-American female, twenty years old, a sophomore, first generation
college student, and is from Tucson, Arizona. Jessie has two sisters and is the oldest of three
born to Mexican parents who migrated to the United States. Jessie’s father works at the
University of Arizona in the custodial department and her mother works as a housekeeper at a
local hotel. When Jessie was nine years old, her family moved from southern California to
Arizona due to the rising costs of homes and standard of living. She explains, “that move was
really difficult for me. I had to leave the friends I had, the neighborhood I grew up in, and my
cousins and other family. I remember crying because it felt like we were moving to the middle of
nowhere.” Looking back now, Jessie understands and is grateful that her parents made the move
because it turned out to be the best financial situation for her family. Jessie described growing up
in a middle-class neighborhood, attending the local high school, and explained functioning as a
personal tutor for her younger sisters, who she would help study, prepare for exams, and do
homework.
Jessie is currently majoring in neuroscience and psychology at the College. When the
topic of disability and accommodations was discussed, she explained that she was never
diagnosed with a condition or received any academic support prior to entering college. She
explained, “I did really well at the school that I went to. It was not something that was not even
on my radar and no one talked to me about this prior to coming here”. During Jessie’s first year,
she noticed that she was struggling in her courses and this was something she was not
accustomed to. She felt like she could not keep up with lectures, would have difficulty getting
through assigned readings, and could not finish exams in a timely manner. She stated, “I began
to feel like I wasn’t smart enough. I felt like I didn’t belong here. I would call my mom crying
53

because I felt so bad”. Jessie was able to talk to one of the deans at the school and was referred to
seek help from the disability services office. After an intake process, Jessie was approved for
temporary accommodations pending the need for her to get official documentation from a
medical professional. Jessie was recently able to see a therapist through Kaiser Permanente and
was given a diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) but does not feel like
she fully grasps and understands what the disability means. However, she reported that her
accommodations have helped and she is performing much better in her courses.
Michael
Michael is a Caucasian male, twenty-two years old, a senior at the College, and is from
Oregon. He is the youngest of three children, has two older sisters, and has parents who both
work in education. Michael’s father works in a high school teaching math and coaches the boys’
varsity basketball team and his mother is a special education teacher who works in an elementary
school. Michael explained, “I come from a family of educators. My sister is in graduate school
working on her teaching credentials and my other sister is working on her PhD and is a professor
at the University of Washington”. Michael reported being raised in a middle class, very tight-knit
community, and really enjoying his childhood. He always felt like he had a support system with
many friends from his neighborhood, school, and his church group. He stated, “it was a really
small community in Oregon and everyone sort of knew everyone but I really enjoyed that. My
whole life was within a five-mile radius of my home- school, friends, church, and sports. The
first time I left home was to come down here for college”.
Michael is currently majoring in political science and hopes to attend law school after
taking a year off from school. When discussing disabilities and accommodations, Michael
reported that he had difficulty reading and writing since he was a young child and seemed to
54

always be aware that he needed extra support. Michael stated, “I was fortunate to have parents
that were really proactive in making sure that I was getting the help I needed. My mom was
especially on top of it because of her experience and job. She saw signs when I was younger and
realized that my reading and writing development wasn’t up to par and made sure I was
connected with services”. When Michael was in second grade, he was diagnosed with dyslexia
and dysgraphia. Michael remembered sitting down with his parents on a number of occasions
and them explaining to him what his diagnosis and disability meant, how it would impact his
school, and how he could overcome difficulties that he could face, both socially and
academically. Michael stated that he is pretty open about his accommodations and openly talks
about this with others. He mentioned, “I do not think I would be where I am at if it wasn’t for the
accommodations I have received”.
Margaret
Margaret is bi-racial female that identified herself as Latina and Caucasian, twenty-one
years old, a junior, and is from Southern California. Margaret has an older sister, who is
currently in medical school, and parents who work in real estate and medicine. Margaret noted
that both she and her sister are following in her father’s footsteps and want to become medical
doctors. She reported growing up in a higher socioeconomic neighborhood, having a very close
family, and parents that were engaged and involved in academic and extracurricular activities.
She explained, “My dad’s grandfather migrated here from Peru and did all he could to help his
family. I think that this really shaped my dad and how our parents raised us. We had a lot of
privilege and access to things and I totally see that but my parents tried to make sure that they
didn’t do anything to spoil us. Hard work was something that was preached in our family all the
time. Excellence is something that was always expected in all that we did”. Margaret stated that
55

she appreciated her parent’s involvement but that at times it was hard and there was a lot of
pressure. She explained that this type of work ethic had positive results for her life and her
sisters. For example, Margaret received a full scholarship to the College as a student athlete for
her excellence in her academics and basketball.
Margaret is double majoring in biology and in environmental science at the College and
reported that academic accommodations are fairly new to her. During her sophomore year in
high school, Margaret had a number of falls during basketball season that resulted in her having
some significant concussions. She would often have headaches, difficulty sleeping, dizziness,
and nausea. She explained, “I was in treatment for the concussions and I was seeing a doctor. I
was cleared after a while because they mentioned that these symptoms were common and would
eventually wear off but I still felt them for a while”. During her first year and sophomore year,
Margaret continued to play basketball and had two more additional concussions. After these
occurred, Margaret was able to disclose to her doctor that she had been experiencing severe
symptoms for several years but was hesitant to share due to her desire to want to continue to play
because she was on scholarship. She recalled, “I noticed that my symptoms started impacting my
academics in pretty obvious ways- I could not make it to class due to really had headaches, I had
a hard time paying attention, couldn’t complete assignments on time, and was doing poorly on
exams because I could never finish on time”. At this time, she was diagnosed with traumatic
brain injury (TBI) and executive functioning disorder. Margaret reached out to one of the deans
who was able to help get accommodations in place. Since then, she has stopped playing
collegiate basketball, has been accessing accommodations for two semesters, is doing much
better in her academics, and is managing her symptoms successfully.

56

Megan
Megan is a bi-racial female that identified as Caucasian and Asian, nineteen years old, a
sophomore, and is from Northern California. She is the youngest of two children, has an older
brother, and both her parents work in the medical field as doctors. Megan explains, “my parents
have always been really involved in my academics. They wanted to make sure that I did well.
My mom was the typical Chinese tiger-mom and my dad really valued school and good grades”.
Megan reported that her older brother is in graduate school and is working to become a computer
engineer. She explained, “my brother is so smart and I feel like my parents expect the same from
me and, sometimes, it can be hard to meet those expectations”. Megan recalled her mother
coordinating with her elementary school to get her accommodations when she was in the fourth
grade. She commented, “my mom took me to see one of her pediatrician friends and they were
able to do tests at some hospital- I think it was at Stanford. I do not remember things too well but
I know I was diagnosed with ADD (attention deficit disorder) and anxiety (general anxiety
disorder).
Megan is not currently majoring in any subject and is not sure what career she would like
to pursue in the future. Prior to entering the College, Megan’s mother reached out to disability
support services at a number of institutions to ensure that she was able to gauge the various
services and type of support schools offered. She stated, “my parents wanted me to stay within
the state and, honestly, I did not mind where I went to school too much. They decided that I
should come here because they felt I would get a lot of support and I believe I have”. Megan
explained that the staff members at the College have been very helpful and that her transition to
college has allowed her to have more of an involvement in her accommodation process. When
things get difficult, she relies on her brother. She conveyed that he is her best friend and that they
57

talk quite often. Megan recalled, “he was there for me my whole life. He would sort of protect
me from my parents being too demanding of me. He would help me with homework, tutor me,
and do it really patiently. My parents expect so much from both of us and he always seemed to
do well and also made time for me. I wouldn’t be where I am without him”. She is very
complimentary of her brother and expresses how he seems to be most understanding of her
disability and how it impacts her academics.
These five biographical portraits provide us with a general sense of the formative aspects
of the subjects’ lives, specifically their family, schooling, demographic characteristics, key
events, and their interpretation of their disability and accommodation process. Atkinson (1998)
asserts that the story telling of one’s own life history is the means by which meaning is made by
reflecting about life and an individual’s self-understanding. This is evident in the reflexivity and
thoughtfulness of the participating subjects. Each of them, throughout their lives and during the
multiple interviews, continued to engage in self-reflection and self-dialogue about their identity
and experiences. It is through this practice that themes and patterns are seen through their words,
reflections, experiences, and stories related to the matters of disabilities, accommodations,
meritocracy, and other topics related to this study. In the following chapter, this study will more
deeply examine the beliefs and worldview development of the subjects through the life history
approach. Specifically, the study will delve into precipitating events, figures, institutions, and
how the subjects have come to make sense of their identity, their current environment, and how
they have made meaning of all these factors as individuals.

58

Key Findings by Research Question
A major focus of the primary questions for the study explored the lived experiences of
students with disabilities and how they shape their perception of themselves, academics, and
institutions that they are a part of. The three questions that guided the study were as follows:
1. How did these college students come to identify themselves as a person with a disability
and what role did their social and educational surroundings have in this process?
2. Through their experiences and challenges, what have these college students come to learn
about their identity and how have they, specifically, made meaning of their identity as a
person with disability in light of these events?
3. What, if any, tenets of meritocracy and ableism have these students internalized or
contested in their meaning making process in an age of academic meritocracy within
higher education and what impact does this have on how they view their disability
identity?
Specifically, the first research question focused on exploring how the participants came to an
awareness of their disability and the process in which they came to identify as a person with a
disability. The second question sought to explore how participants have made meaning of their
identity and what they have learned in light of their experiences and challenges as a person with
a disability. Lastly, the third question research question examined participants’ understanding of
ableism and meritocracy and whether these forces have had any significant impact on how they
perceive their disability identity.
While each participant in this study has their own unique narrative and story, it is critical
to know and understand what emerged as shared beliefs and worldviews amongst the subjects,
specifically related to their identity as a student with a disability. This will allow the study to
59

have a more holistic picture of the participants. Moreover, the literature notes identity
development as critically important and important aspect for the holistic growth of college
students (Abes, Jones & McEwen, 2007; Chickering & Resier, 1993). The findings presented in
this chapter support and emphasize the reality that college students and their identity
development is happening in a dialectical response relationship with several contextual
influences and factors (Abes, Jones & McEwen, 2007). This study hopes to add to the literature
that highlights the challenges and journey college students embark on regarding identity
development in light of broader developmental factors and processes including meritocracy,
ableism, social context, influences, and other dynamics within educational institutions. This
section will share significant findings related to this experience as well as other key themes
before a brief conclusion.
Research Question 1: How did these college students come to identify themselves as a person
with a disability and what role did their social and educational surroundings have in this
process?
This first research question focused on exploring how the participants came to an
awareness of their disability and the process in which they came to identify as a person with a
disability. In addition, the question sought to gauge the level of impact that their social and
educational environments had on this process. This question guided the first section of the
interview protocol (Appendix C) and delved into the participants formative years, their family,
culture, early memories in schooling, and significant key events and influential figures that
played a role in their process of understanding their disability identity.
Dunn and Burcaw (2013) highlight the importance of allowing narratives to help
understand the critical aspects and milestones related to how a person engages in making sense
60

of their identity. In order to better understand and gain a comprehensive idea of how participants
made sense of their disability, it was important to frame the interview questions around when
participants first learned or understood this reality about themselves and how they made sense of
it. The three initial questions of the interview were: A. What was your first experience like
knowing that you had a disability? How did you learn about it? B. What was school and family
life like for you after being aware of your disability? C. Do you currently identify as someone
with a disability? If so, do you remember when you first saw this as part of your identity? These
questions and section of the interview focused on participants recalling their concept and
understanding of disability throughout their lives.
First, for several of the participants, finding out about their disability was tied to their
parents. For many of them, their parents were intentionally unclear about their accommodations
or disabilities.
Megan: One of my friends took a test with me after class and she mentioned something about us
having disabilities. I remember going home and researching it and asking my parents. Even
then, they really didn’t feel comfortable. They said it was just that I learned differently and
needed support. I think I knew though then though. Honestly, I do not think they’ve ever like
actually said, “you have a disability” or something like that.
For parents, disability may be an unpleasant surprise, a tragedy, touching, and poignant but, for
the child, it may just be something given, something that is normal and natural (Blumberg,
2004). During Megan’s interview, this was a tension that was felt throughout her narrative.
Megan had begun experiencing her disability and its impact on her academics but, for a number
of years, was not able to really understand or make sense of what was happening to her, let alone
being able to process having an identity as a person with a disability. While Megan understood
61

her reality to be normal and had questions regarding her experiences, her parents constantly told
her that she was “okay” and “normal” but also explained that she was simply “different”,
“unique”, and “needing of more help”. As Megan explained, it seemed that her identity as a
person with a disability was something that was difficult for her parents to come to grips and
accept even to the point of never being able to explicitly admit this to their daughter. This was
also the case for another one of the participants, Jordan.
Jordan: My mom switched jobs and so I left my small high and went to a really competitive high
school near her work. During the first weeks of classes, we had one of those 504 meetings? For
my plan? Yeah and so they talked about me having ADD and social anxiety and I was like
confused. I think my mom knew. I realized, at that point, that I actually had a disability that
whole time. I wasn’t shocked or angry or anything. In my mind, it was like “of course, that
makes sense” but I did ask my mom about it on the car ride home. I don’t remember what I
asked but it was pretty much me wondering why she didn’t tell me. She didn’t want to answer it,
she just ignored it and turned on the radio.
In addition, Danielson (2004) found that parents often reinforce society’s negative attitudes and
often tell their children that their disability is not a problem at home but that it is unacceptable in
public and, while this may be an attempt to protect their child, it resulted in a disability being
seen as a shameful and something to be hidden. Jordan and Megan’s responses seemed to affirm
this in their own experiences. As they shared their narratives, they communicated that their
parents felt that their disability was something negative, something to be hidden, or avoided,
especially around others and in public. For them, this was the major reason why their parents
never seemed to be willing to actually discuss their identities as a people with disabilities.
62

Megan: We were at a family party for Christmas or maybe Thanksgiving and we were all at my
cousin’s house and I believe it was right when I had started at the College so my aunt was asking
me how my first semester was going. I was mentioning about people being accommodating and
my mom cut me off. I was confused at first but it was because I simply mentioned that word. It
wasn’t even about accommodations but she was so paranoid about me telling my family about it.
When I asked her about it, she tried to play it off but then said that she didn’t want the family to
look at me differently or for them to gossip about me and that they wouldn’t understand.
Jordan: I remember being young and like I would fidget a lot and get nervous. She would pinch
me and be upset when I would do it in public. She would tell me she didn’t want others to think
something was wrong with me. Also, Asian parents compare their kids a lot. I feel like I was
forbidden to talk about my disability around family or share about any of my struggles in school.
However, this was not the case for every participant. For another participant, parents played a
positive and significant role in understanding their disability from an early age. For Michael, his
parents have been involved with him making sense of his disability for as long as he can
remember. In his case, he felt his parents had a significant impact on how he progressively
understood his disability and also how he made positive meaning of his identity.
Michael: My mom would explain things to me in a simple way and then ask if I had questions. At
times, I did and she would give me good answers. It helped so much that both my parents were
educators..they just knew what to do and say. I guess, for me, I never saw my disability as a bad
or negative thing. It was something that just was. I guess my parents normalized it and they never
seemed to make it a bad thing or something that was a huge deal.
Due to the fact that children with disabilities are more dependent on their parents, their views are
especially likely to be shaped by parents and close family members during their childhood years
63

(Darling, 2013). For these three participants, whether positive or negative, it seems that their
parents played a significant role in their exposure and understanding of their disability.
However, many individuals with disabilities acquire their disability later in life, including
two other participants in this study. When parents were less likely to be involved, it seemed that
participants understood and made sense of their disability by adopting cultural and societal
views. During my interview with Margaret and Jessie, it was noteworthy that they seemed to be
hesitant to identify as persons with a disability and continued to emphasize that this was really a
matter of managing a medical condition even though they were willing to participate in this
study. Higgins (2002) asserts that individuals who have had more time with a disability or have
more severe or visible impairments are more likely to identify with the disability community
than those with invisible disabilities or when one is acquired later in life. For those who acquired
their disability later in life, they were more likely to identify with seeing disability through a
medical model and hesitant to associate with the identity.
Margaret: Accommodations were really helpful when I got them but it was awkward talking to
professors about them because I just never had to do that before especially with professors I
previously had. I almost felt bad and I guess for me, I felt like it wasn’t really like a regular
disability it was more like an injury and health condition I could manage so it seemed weird for
me to have things like a note taker, extra time, and extensions.
Jessie: I remember seeing a doctor at Kaiser and he just asked me like a few questions, gave me
a diagnosis, and didn’t really explain much. He told me I had ADHD and I needed the
documentation for accommodations so I didn’t really follow up. Honestly, I wonder if I even have
a disability. Maybe, it’s a condition that I can manage and maybe its adjusting to college. Maybe,
64

I’m adjusted now? Maybe, I don’t have a disability. I’ve thought about stopping accommodations
but I am scared… I really don’t know how sure I am about the whole thing.
The nature and visibility of an impairment, as well as the time of its acquisition, whether
at birth or later in life, are important variables in disability identity and how salient it may be to
individuals. For these subjects, there was a hesitancy to identify with having a disability even
when both expressed being significantly helped and their academic experiences benefiting from
academic accommodations. There was simply an unwillingness to label themselves as people
with disabilities likely as a result of societal stigma. Labeling theory in sociology contends that,
as a result of their interactions in society, people will internalize the negative view of others and
incorporate them into their self-concepts (Darling, 2013). This became clearer when participants
were asked the second question: What was school and family life like for you after being aware
of your disability?
The salience of disability in an individual’s identity is likely to shift or be influenced by
the context in which an individual and sociocultural environment defines disability, and this
context will have a profound impact on individual’s recognition and acceptance of their
disabilities (Dunn & Burcaw, 2013).
Margaret: I think my parents are happy I am getting better grades but I don’t talk to them about
accommodations or my disability. They were upset about me not being able to play basketball
anymore due to my condition, so they don’t see it positively. We mostly just see it as a medical
condition that I have to go through and accommodations are a tool that are helping me get
through college.
Jessie: I am a first gen student so my parents didn’t attend college or anything like that. It’s hard
to talk to them about anything related to school. I think if I mentioned the word disability, they
65

would like freak out or something. I feel like they would think something is wrong with me
because I think their view of disability is maybe like someone in a wheelchair or somebody with
severe mental health issues or something
It is important to note that this was not only present with subjects who had recently acquired a
disability but also with those who had their disability for a significant amount of time.
Jordan: I don’t think it’s even possible to talk to my parents about me having a disability now….
I feel like they wouldn’t want me to talk about it either. With us being Asian, there’s a bit of
shame about it and I don’t believe she would want me to share it with anyone really. When we
talk now, it’s more of her feeling pity for me because she thinks I can’t handle college or feels
like my disability is a problem that won’t allow me to do well. I don’t know- it’s like she doesn’t
think I am capable because of my disability.
Megan: My parents seem to kind of talk down to me, almost like I can’t handle things or am not
smart enough to be here. It’s frustrating. When things go wrong, it’s because of my disability.
When I do well, they then feel like it’s because things are easier for me here because of my
accommodations. It’s sort of a lose-lose situation, to be honest. I feel like I can’t ever win with
them.
Michael: I never told my parents but when I came to college, I tried to not get accommodations.
I really struggled and failed an exam so I ended up getting them. I guess when I came to college,
I wanted to see if that part of me would change. I think it was something that was there for so
long and I really felt like I was smart enough to be here so I wanted to prove that to myself. I
wanted to not have to be seen through having accommodations or needing them.
The choice to disclose is one that individuals with more visible disabilities do not have
the privilege of making; however, for individuals with invisible disabilities, like the participants
66

in this study, there can be a self-destroying tension between appearance and identity (Samuels,
2003). At times, Kirk (2010) highlighted the need for students to manage their condition around
others in order to fit in and “live an ordinary life”. This included timing medical appointments
around school hours and activities, using humor or deflecting in conversations, covering or
passing as “normal”, only revealing their condition or accommodations to a few trusted friends,
and distancing themselves from other students with disabilities. Due to this, there has been a
significant decline in disclosure and self-identification from secondary to postsecondary
education amongst students with invisible disabilities (Sanford et al., 2011). For the participants
in this study, this tension seemed to be apparent. There seemed to be a willingness to accept their
disability but a hesitancy to accept it as part of their identity. Therefore, I made an attempt to ask
participants directly if they indeed identified as a person with a disability. All subjects were able
to identify as a person with a disability when asked directly but I was struck by them each
nuancing what that meant for them and their individual experiences.
Michael: I mean, it’s an important part of who I am but, like, I am not sure if I always will
identify with it. There’s a reason to do it while I am in school but I don’t know if I would carry
that with me beyond here at the College.
Jordan: Other than accommodations, I am not sure what the significance would be for me to
have this identity. I guess it’s always there so I can’t argue that it’s a part of me.
Megan: I do view as part of my identity because I experience its effects all the time. The same
with being a woman, Asian, white, American, and so on. I just think what makes it hard is that
there is a bad perception about it for me… I feel like there’s something wrong with me because
of it and its in ways that I don’t feel with my other identities and I think certain things have made
me feel that way for a long time.
67

Jessie: I do identify as one but, since I just found out about it, I feel wrong identifying myself that
way. I do not think I understand my disability well enough in order to feel like I can identify as a
person with a disability. I feel that, in order to do that, you have to be more aware or had a
disability longer.
Margaret: I do identify with it now but, to me, I honestly feel like it’s been a different experience.
There’s something important with identifying as something and, for me, I feel like something
medically happened and so accommodations help me and that’s the limit in terms of me
identifying with it. I just feel bad claiming it and having a sense of pride about it.
On one hand, these responses can be seen as the dynamic reality of identities shifting
overtime and challenges a static understanding of disability. Disability identity is more complex
than the essential binary difference of disabled/nondisabled that is usually assumed (Sherry,
2007). On the other hand, most literature surrounding teenagers and young adults with
disabilities show that, at best, they do not reject a disability identity but they work hard to fit in
with “normal” society and tend to minimize the role played by their disabilities in everyday life
but, at worst, choose not to think of themselves as disabled and avoid associating with other
disabled individuals (Darling, 2013). From my interactions with the participants, both of these
realities were present but there seemed to be a significant pressure on them to avoid association
and to not identify themselves as people with disabilities.
Summary of Findings for Research Question One
Awareness of disability is a gradual and ongoing process
Identity is not stable or static and saliency of an identity can fluctuate over time. Thus,
identity formation and development are ongoing processes that continue throughout the life
course as individuals encounter new social situations and perspectives from societal factors. This
68

was evident amongst participants in this study. For many of them, understanding their disability
was a process that was gradual and, in many ways, is still on going. For instance, even while
experiencing life with a disability, many of the participants had to wait for an official diagnosis
to make sense of their reality. Once a diagnosis was determined, some participants still needed
time to understand and make sense of this new identity. For example, Jordan’s parents decided to
not disclose the diagnosis to him, and he was not fully aware that he had one late into high
school. Even then, Jordan did not have a full awareness of his diagnosis and condition until he
started attending the College. For others who acquired a diagnosis later in life, the process of
understanding their disability as a part of identity can be a difficult process for various reasons.
Margaret, for instance, saw her condition as a threat to her important identity of being a student
athlete. She seemed hesitant to accept it as a part of herself since it was the reason she could no
longer play sports and held to the possibility that her condition was only temporary and would
eventually go away. In addition, for Jessie, she is still processing what it means for her to have a
disability and uses this awareness to filter through her past, present, and future to try to
understand things like when she acquired it, to what degree it impacts her, and if she will need
accommodations permanently. For her, coming to embrace her disability identity means having a
better understanding of her condition first.
Disability status can be acquired at any point in life, different forms of impairment can
shift over time, disabilities can vary in functional limitations, and the apparentness of a disability
to others can change (Evans et al., 2016). Therefore, awareness and disability can fluctuate
throughout the lifetime of an individual as a result of these factors and, consequently, people
with disabilities have varied experiences and should not be seen as a monolithic group.

69

Familial and educational environments significantly impact awareness of disability identity
People’s social identities and their understanding of their disability are influenced by the
temporal, national, geographic, and cultural environments that they are a part of (Evans, 2008).
Dunn and Burcaw (2013) highlight that the saliency of an individual’s identity is based on the
context in which their sociocultural environment defines disability. Specifically, the context that
individuals find themselves in can have a profound impact on individuals’ recognition and
acceptance of their disabilities. This was very evident amongst the subjects in this study.
First and most prominently, the participant’s families, specifically their parents, had a
significant role in their awareness and understanding of disability. On the most basic level,
access to a diagnosis was often tied to their parents. Most of the participants highlighted their
parents knowing how to take initiative by getting medical care and finding a way to advocate to
receive support when it came to their disability. This was likely due to the fact that, with the
exception of Jessie, all subjects had parents who worked in education or in the medical field.
However, parent involvement in this way did not mean a positive view of their child’s disability
identity. Most parents in the study saw disability through the medical model and as an issue
located within their children. This view is often associated with shame and guilt. For our
participants, specifically Jordan and Megan, this meant their parents keeping information away
from them, avoiding conversations, and prohibiting them to publicly discuss or mention
accommodations or their disability. Similarly, for Jessie and Margaret, who received their
diagnosis during college, they showed a reluctance to discuss their disability with their parents
because of how they perceived their parents’ feelings towards it. In contrast, Michael had parents
made efforts to advocate, share, and have dialogue with him regarding his disability.
70

Nevertheless, Michael felt his parents were too involved and, as a means to break free from their
involvement, attempted to take courses at the College without accommodations.
The family environment is an important component of social support needed for students
with disabilities to thrive and students are often searching for help to address problems with their
parental relationships (Heiman & Berger, 2008). Often, students have overprotective parents who
use disability as a method of preventing their child from functioning autonomously or who do
not support their personal or academic aspirations due to stigma and negative views of disability
and having lower expectations for their children (Sanders, 2006; Shifrer, 2013). As participants
shared their stories, it was clear that their parent’s involvement and views on disability
significantly impacted their own perception of disability and how it connected to their identity.
Secondly, the educational contexts that individuals are a part of play a significant role in
their awareness and understanding of disability. Students develop an understanding of their
identity through their experiences within society, including the primary and secondary
educational systems they are a part of (Evans et. al, 2016). Furthermore, experiences within
educational context can not only influence whether students come to identify as a person with a
disability but also their decisions on which institutions they will attend and what resources they
will use. Almost two-thirds (63 percent) of postsecondary students who were identified by their
secondary school as having a disability did not consider themselves to have a disability by the
time they had transitioned to postsecondary schools (Newman et al., 2011). A major reason for
this decline comes from the experiences and stigma associated with a disability and the social
consequences people have experienced when requesting accommodations at previous institutions
(Baldridge & Swift, 2013).
71

For participants, specifically Jordan, Margaret, and Michael, their experiences in
educational institutions had a significant impact on how they came to understand and view their
disability identity. These subjects felt like they were not involved, considered, aware, or given
much information by their institutions or included in processes involving their accommodations
or disability. For example, Jordan did not know his official diagnosis until his intake
appointment at the College when it was explained to him. Likewise, Megan had received
accommodations in the fourth grade but did not know until seventh grade that she may have a
disability because one of her friends mentioned it to her. For others, limited access to resources
and barriers within their educational institutions also had a major impact on their view of their
disability identity. Jessie attended a Title 1 school in the Tucson, Arizona area, performed well,
but never was able to access services for her disability even when she shared some academic
difficulties with teachers and a counselor. Once she got into the College, Jessie struggled with
anxiety, depression, and imposter syndrome because she fell behind in her academics. After
receiving her diagnosis, Jessie had challenges making sense of her past and processing what it
means to have a disability, including feeling guilty for using accommodations. The experiences
of participants illustrate how institutional environments play a significant role in the process of
identity development amongst students with disabilities.
Through the subject’s own narratives and recollections, they were able to reveal how
their awareness of their disability was a gradual and ongoing process. Moreover, this process,
over their lives, has been greatly influenced by the familiar and educational environments that
they have been a part of. This section sought to better understand and gain a comprehensive idea
of how participants made sense of their disability, including when participants first learned or
understood this reality about themselves. In particular, participants understanding of disability
72

was significantly shaped by their parents and societal views that often framed this identity
negatively. Their narratives highlighted the tension of the participants’ ability to make meaning
of their awareness and the concept of disability identity and what it meant for their own identity
within a society that functions from ableist and meritocratic tenets. In the following section, I
will share the major findings that serve to address research question two.
Research Question 2: Through their experiences and challenges, what have these college
students come to learn about their identity and how have they, specifically, made meaning of
their identity as a person with disability in light of these events?
This second research question focused on exploring how participants have made meaning
of their identity and what they have learned in light of their experiences and challenges as a
person with a disability. This question guided the second section of the interview protocol
(Appendix C) and specifically sought to examine participants’ past and current experiences,
specifically relating to their disabilities and significant events that impacted how they have come
to make sense of their identity.
Johnstone (2004) highlights that disability identity is most empowering when it is self-
described and defined as an individualized experience. By utilizing a life history method in this
study, the hope was to capture and allow participants to reflect on their experiences. Due to the
long-lens nature of the life history, the researcher can document moments of social change and
impact, as well as information about strategies, opportunities, aspirations, constraints, and
turning points (Knowles, 1993). Perception of self can change as a result of turning points, at
which new information is acquired including experiencing stigma, meeting new people, or being
offered a new perspective to frame or evaluate a present situation (Charmaz, 2019). As such, the
73

goal of this section was to capture the subject’s life in the context of the individual’s lived
experience, as well as in the broader political economy, or the social and economic
context, in which they live, specifically as it relates to their disability (Atkinson, 1998).
First, participants were asked the following question: A. Do you have any significant
memories about your experience with a disability that have most resonated with you? When
asked, subjects were told that it could be a positive or negative experience and it was primarily
about what resonated most with them. During this section of the interview, most seemed to select
memories that seemed to be framed through a negative lens. These experiences often were
associated with their parents. For instance, Jordan recalled his most vivid memory being when he
first found out he had an accommodation and his parents were unwilling to talk to him about it.
Jordan: Yeah, definitely the memory that resonates most with me is when I was officially told
that I had a disability and the details of my accommodation. It was only like two and a half years
ago so its fresh in my mind. My mom knew all the people in the small school I was a part of so I
feel like she managed to keep it all secret from me. Maybe, the car ride home was the thing that I
remember most. She wouldn’t talk to me about it despite all my questions. Even when I got home,
during dinner, both my parents were quiet. It’s almost like they had more shame about it than I
did.
For other subjects, their memories involved their parents perceiving seeing their disability as a
major and unwanted problem.
Margaret: It was rough when I was told I couldn’t play and got my diagnosis. It just felt like I
had a condition that was getting in the way of my goals and things that I wanted to do. When you
have a concussion, you kind of assume that things would go back to normal but it didn’t for me.
It was really hard for my parents and, even now, to accept that I have this disability lingering. I
74

don’t think they want to view me as a person with a disability. I feel like they have hope that, one
day, I’ll be fine and be back to normal and won’t need accommodations.
Jessie: I remember telling my mom that I was going to the doctor to see if I could get
accommodations because I thought I had a disability. I remember her voice being worried and
she just kept telling me to not say things like because nothing was wrong with me. After that, I
haven’t really felt as comfortable talking to her about it.
Megan: Recently, I was talking to my brother about what I may major in and I talked about pre-
med and my mom said something like, “but you have a disability”. I was pretty upset and said,
“so what?”. It was really awkward and my brother just changed the subject but it was telling to
hear my mom say that especially since she went to medical school. I don’t think she thinks I can
do it or I don’t have the ability to get to where she’s at in life.
For Michael, his experienced was focused on trying to avoid his parents influence and perceived
control over his disability.
Michael: For me, it was failing that first exam in college. I shouldn’t have done it without
accommodations. I wanted to do things on my own for the first time. It was my parents who
would handle all that when I was growing up and so I wanted to sort of be in control of my own
school journey and leave all that behind but it was definitely the wrong move.
For most people, their point of reference for understanding their identity as a person with
a disability comes from their parents. All the child development literature suggests that during
childhood, and even later, parents are the most important influence and contributor of how
children make sense of their identity (Darling, 2013). Unfortunately, most parents tend to have a
medical model view of disability and begin to focus on maximizing their child’s ability through
intervention which, in turn, teaches their children, from an early age, that their bodies are in need
75

of repair and something to be ashamed of (Connors & Stalker, 2007). I was interested to see how
these parental influences impacted the subject’s views of how they interpreted and viewed any
potential challenges that they had encountered in their personal lives and academic career,
including their time at the College, related to their disability. Participants were asked the
following questions: B. Did you face any challenges navigating your disability in your personal
life or educational career on your way to college? C. What has been your experience having a
disability at the college and have you faced any challenges here?
Three of the participants, mostly due to their limited time of having a disability diagnosis,
did not report having significant challenges until their time at the College. One of the common
themes for these participants related to challenges with their faculty members.
Michael: If I had to pick anything that is hard to navigate, I would say it’s really just been able
to have conversations with people about my disability who may not understand. Like, I’ve had
family, friends, teachers and, especially, professors here who have made comments like, “You
don’t look like you need accommodations” or “you don’t seem like you have a disability”. I used
to try to explain my condition but, over the years, I sort of smile and shrug it off because it’s a
challenge to explain or, I guess, sort of, justify it, you know?
Margaret: Since I did not have accommodations during my first two years here, some of my
professors who knew me, I feel, sort of didn’t think I needed them. At first, when I explained the
concussion, they were okay with it but, once I kept using them, some of them would tell me to try
without extra time or said things like, “let’s just see and I’ll work with you”. It was tough
because I still have some of these professors due to my major so it’s kind of awkward asking for
my accommodations because I feel like they don’t think I actually need them.
76

Jessie: I don’t know how to properly communicate or know how to express my need for my
accommodations sometimes or my disability…. I have accommodations for note takers and the
ability to record lectures and some of my faculty members will ask me about if I really need the
recording or what types of notes I need and I don’t know how to answer. I get so anxious about it
that I just sometimes don’t ask for those things anymore. I just ask for extra time because they
don’t ask me questions about that and I don’t feel it burdens them as much.
Faculty are, perhaps, the most important people affecting both the classroom environment
and success of students with disabilities (Evans et al., 2017). Faculty interactions with students
with disabilities and their willingness to provide necessary accommodations to assist these
students plays and important role in faculty members’ success in working with students with
disabilities and in the students’ feelings about their overall campus experience (Baker et al.,
2012). The participants, when requesting for accommodations, felt that they were placed in
situations where they had to provide an explanation or justification for their request. This
experience seems to be common when compared to the research. Dowrick, Anderson, Heyer, and
Acosta (2005), highlighted the high frequency of faculty members questioning whether students
with disabilities deserved the accommodations they requested, and as a result, left many students
stigmatized.
Furthermore, students with disabilities, specifically those with learning impairments or
invisible disabilities, reported encountering faculty who refused to provide them with
accommodations and were also unfamiliar with the rights of students with disabilities. Often,
students become reluctant to ask for accommodations and resort to “giving in” and not
requesting to avoid being seen as a hassle, burden, or being seen as “different” or “inferior”
(Denhart, 2008). Experiences like these can have a significant impact on these participants and
77

other students. This can lead to students having interpersonal and social difficulties while feeling
isolated due to a lack of being connected to comprehensive support within the educational
institutions they are a part of. This type of experience was reported by two of the participants.
Megan: On one hand, people feel like bad for me or talk to me like I am not capable and then,
on the other hand, I can get comments about me having it easy because of my accommodations. I
wish there was more kind of social support or ways I could connect to other people who have
accommodations who may experience the same things. I feel like at the College having
disabilities is seen more of simply having a condition and accommodations are just something
that needs to get done from a legal standpoint and that’s it. There’s no other type of support that
students with disabilities have other than those things. I guess I wish there was more.
Jordan: During my first semester, I was really lonely, depressed, and just stayed in my dorm
room playing games…. I guess there’s a lot of affinity groups and that’s great for all the diverse
students but I just feel that people who have a disability aren’t seen that way. I think its solely
seen as a condition and the only support provided is the academic accommodations. I wish there
was more support socially and maybe the chance to be able to connect with people who have had
similar experiences.
An effective and valuable way of increasing awareness of disability and the needs and
concerns of students with disabilities is to include disability under the umbrella of diversity
(Kalivoda, 2009). Evans et al. (2017) highlights that until disability is able to be seen as an
important part of social identity and given the weight of other identities, such as race, gender,
and social class, it will not be given serious and considerable attention in or out of the classroom.
While these participants received academic accommodations, they felt that this was the only
78

support offered and found it to be limiting and insufficient to provide the tools, skills, and means
to overcome the barriers and difficulties they faced as students with disabilities.
Huger (2011) notes that institutions must have a campus wide commitment to
accessibility and inclusion, which begins with knowing detailed information about such
experiences like these shared by participants. After hearing the subjects’ experiences and their
perceived challenges, I wanted to gauge how these things shaped how they viewed their
environment and, also, themselves. By gathering this additional information, it would provide a
fuller picture of their experiences and provide details as to how participants made meaning of
external factors and their internal meaning making process. In order to do this, two additional
questions were asked: D. Did these challenges tell you anything about your environment, this
school, culture/society, yourself? E. Do you feel like you have or will overcome these
challenges?
As participants reflected on their different barriers and challenges, there seemed to be a
consensus feeling that these difficulties had not been overcome even if they no longer impacted
subjects on a personal level. When pushed further on this, participants felt that these challenges
and barriers were beyond their ability to solve, felt uncomfortable addressing them, or, most
commonly, wondered if they were the problem themselves and not their environment, school,
and societal factors.
Michael: Most people sort of think of a person in a wheelchair or something physical. When they
see me, they don’t see that and so maybe that’s why I get the statements that I do from people
and professors. I feel like people have a really bad view of disability of not being “smart”
enough or “able” enough and that’s so narrow. It tells me that I don’t fit into their preconceived
79

idea…. I don’t know if I have really overcome this challenge because it doesn’t impact me
personally too much. I’m not really sure what I can do to fix this.
Margaret: I do not want to make a big deal out of the challenges that I have faced because I
know people face so much more than me. At times, the situation or circumstances aren’t ideal
but I wouldn’t really take time to correct my professors on it or anything. It’s also the nature of
my disability, which is different in comparison to other disabilities so I don’t know if my
experience would best explain the experience of other people with disabilities or how legitimate
it is. Maybe, it’s just my own problem.
Jessie: I do not know how to make sense of my own disability so I feel like the challenges and
difficulties I have are my own fault for not knowing how to do that yet. Maybe, over time, it’ll
change.
Megan: Our society doesn’t hear enough about the experiences of people with disability. There
can be a lot of things that go on besides just, I guess, the physical. I don’t think that this is
understood and it can limit the type of support people get and new ideas aren’t being considered.
I’ll be honest, this is hard for me to answer. There are moments when I am really down about
this and I wonder if it’s just me, you know? Maybe, it’s like my crazy family or I’m just being
dramatic. I’m not sure how much of it is the actual challenges people face with disabilities or if
it just my own problems.
Jordan: I’m not saying there’s no support or anything but I think, generally, it’s the bare
minimum or what people are legally responsible to do. Since this is the way things are done, then
additional support that goes beyond that is maybe too much to ask for. It was really hard for me
but I learned that it was my problem to solve and things didn’t get better until I did something
and things eventually got better. I guess these problems aren’t impossible to overcome, maybe I
80

should have done more sooner and that’s on me or maybe there’s just bigger problems than the
things I faced.
Groce (2005) explains that, in all societies, individuals with disabilities are not only
recognized as distinct from the general population but, often, value and meaning are attached to
their condition. Unfortunately, the most pervasive attitude towards disability in the United States
and in Western society has been stigma. As a result of such views, the individual with the
disability is the problem and their lack to conform rather than the environment, society, or
system that presents such barriers and challenges. This seemed to be internalized amongst all the
participants. Even while recalling barriers and difficulties they faced, it was notable that the
subjects seemed to minimize and often saw these things as their own problem, their fault, or
provided reasons to delegitimatize their experiences.
Summary of Findings for Research Question Two
Disability Identity is not static and is continually shaped by experiences and challenges
Kegan (1982) notes that people make meaning between the moment an event occurs and
one’s reaction to it. This window in time highlights how an individual’s particular experiences
can shape their personal identity. Through this process, being a person becomes “an ever-
progressive motion constantly engaged in giving itself a new form” (Kegan, 1982). Often,
disability can be seen as a dichotomous and detrimental identity that becomes a devalued binary
partner to valued notions of ability and normality (Titchkosky, 2007). However, this notion of
disability being less than must be challenged and the idea of promoting that ability is on a
continuum and changes throughout the life course through various experiences must me
emphasized (Evans et al., 2017).
81

At different points in their lives, the participants’ saliency with their disability identity
changed and shifted based on experiences related to how they viewed their disability, and this
may differ from others’ perception. Shakespeare (1996) highlights that there is an important
difference between being identified as a person with disability by others and identifying oneself
as a person with disability. For example, Jordan, Megan, and Michael received accommodations
in grade school but they all had experiences that limited their awareness of their identity. After
having some awareness, for Megan and Jordan, they were not allowed to openly discuss or know
the details of their disability and, therefore, had limited information and awareness prior to
entering the College. Participants recalled their parents having control and managing their
accommodations process and, ultimately, managing what decisions and information their
children could have access to. This meant that subjects were not able to fully understand or begin
to take steps to embrace their disability identity.
In addition, most participants, including those who acquired their disability during their
time at the College, associated their disability identity in a negative way due to the perceptions of
others around them and previous negative experiences. To illustrate, Margaret vividly recollected
her father being angry at her doctor for suggesting that she would have the need for
accommodations for a long-term basis and that she would no longer be able to participate in
sports. Likewise, Jessie shared a memory of her mother being appalled and dismissing the
possibility of a disability because “nothing like that was wrong with her”. Due to these
experiences, both subjects were hesitant to identify or embrace their identity disability socially,
specifically with their parents.
In addition, all participants, resonated with some specific challenging experiences at the
College. For example, due to the participants mostly having invisible disabilities and two of them
82

newly acquiring them at the College, they recalled peers and professors calling into question the
validity of their disability status. Peers and faculty members would often comment that subjects
did not “seem or look like” they had a disability or called into question whether accommodations
were necessary or implied that it was a shortcut or “cheating” the system. Sniatecki, Perry, and
Snell (2015) noted that, within higher education, faculty members are more likely to hold
negative attitudes towards students with invisible disabilities which can lead to microaggressions
or inequitable treatment. On different occasions, during their time at the College, subjects’
saliency regarding their disability identity would shift due to various experiences that left them
feeling like others perceived their disability identity negatively. Often, this led to participants
making decisions to distance themselves or attempt to not identify as a person with a disability or
no longer utilize academic accommodations due to feelings stemming from these interactions.
Academic institutions may offer limited to minimal support beyond academic adjustments which
means disability identity in college is experienced only through the narrow lens of
accommodations
The institutional support available to students with disabilities can vary depending on the
characteristics of a school including enrollment size, geographical location, residential or
commuting, public or private, two or four year, and other factors. This means that philosophical
approaches to disability resources and support will also occur on a continuum (Kurth & Mellard,
2006). However, in many institutions there is a mindset that students with disabilities belong
solely to the disability resources office rather than seeing ability as a diverse identity that all
campus members are responsible for. Unfortunately, at the most rudimentary level, disability
resource offices function as an institutional compliance mechanism for federal regulations with a
focus on simply upholding the letter of the law (Evans et al., 2017). Rather than functioning from
83

a social justice perspective, legislation becomes the ceiling rather than the floor, which has a
significant impact on support and inclusion for students with disabilities. When this occurs,
things like student agency, advocating for inclusive practices and policies, educating campus
community, disability pride, and modeling social justice in interactions are lost (Evans et al.,
2017). In a college environment, this means students, like our participants, only experience their
disability identity in relation to academic accommodations.
Participants in this study expressed feeling supported and helped by their disability
resource office when it came to registering for and receiving accommodations. However, they
expressed wanting to access more comprehensive services and support related to their disability.
For instance, Jordan, as a student with disability, explained having difficulty connecting with
other students and feeling isolated and depressed for several months when arriving to the
College. He explicitly mentioned that he wished the disability resource office could provide
more opportunities to connect with other students with disabilities in order to share experiences
and a desire to learn skills to better handle social interactions and situations. He felt that this
level of support would have improved his transition and experience at the college during his first
few months as a student. In addition, Megan shared feeling anxiety and uneasiness having to
interview for jobs and internships due to her condition and lacking skills to overcome or cope
with this process. She also shared that she felt alone with this issue and that she wished more
services could be offered with managing these types of situations for students with disabilities.
Lastly, when Michael shared with the disability resource office that he opted to not use his
accommodations because he wanted a fresh start and failed his exam, he explained being anxious
during the meeting but there was no conversation or follow about how he was feeling in that
moment or further exploration. Michael explained that the office was quick to help him get his
84

accommodations set up but wished they could have offered support on how to communicate
what occurred with his parents and managing feelings related to his identity. These experiences
show the reality that students with disabilities have diverse needs, conditions and experiences
that necessitate a more comprehensive and holistic approach from practitioners (Evans et al.,
2017).
After listening to the participants through the interview process, they highlighted how
various experiences and challenges shaped how they identified as a person with disability and the
ways in which this process is a dynamic rather than a static one. Moreover, as the subjects faced
these experiences and challenges, they expressed that they wished they had access to more
services and greater support in navigating their identity as a person with a disability. However,
being a student with a disability at the College, meant little other than needing academic
accommodations, which resulted in limited resources and an inability to provide the level of
support participants desired. In the following section, I will share the major findings that serve to
address research question three.
Research Question 3: What, if any, tenets of meritocracy and ableism have these students
internalized or contested in their meaning making process in an age of academic meritocracy
within higher education and what impact does this have on how they view their disability
identity?
The third research question examined the participants understanding of ableism and
meritocracy. It allowed subjects to reflect on the pervasiveness of these influences on their
academic experiences, whether they had been internalized, and to gauge whether they have had
any significant impact on how they perceive their disability identity. This question guided the
third section of the interview protocol (Appendix C), which specifically explored how
85

participants made meaning of their identity as a person with a disability in environments with
ableist and meritocratic forces.
Josselson (1996) describes identity as “what we make of ourselves within a society that is
making something of us”. The questions “Who am I?, What will I be?” serve as the bedrock and
fundamental core of the study of identity (Widick, Parker, & Knefelkamp, 1978). Scholarly
inquiry focused on college student identity development seeks to analyze how these questions
are answered through understanding personal narratives. Despite a great variety in
epistemological and methodological approaches, disciplinary roots, and sample compositions,
the study of student identity is anchored in narrative approaches (Jones & Abes, 2013). Often,
individuals can define themselves through others’ knowledge, expectations, and worldviews
rather than having the ability to define their own perspectives (Jones & Abes, 2013). Baxter
Magolda (1999) explains that understanding and listening to student narratives allows for
students to engage in self-authorship, which is an ability to construct knowledge in a contextual
world, an ability to construct an internal identity separate from external influences, and an ability
to engage in relationships without losing one’s internal identity. In order to allow students to
engage in this meaning-making process and use their own voice to engage authentically with
themselves and external factors in their lives, the next section of the interview allowed students
to reflect on their personal identity. First, participants were asked: A. What identities do you hold
as most important to you? What does your identity as someone with a disability mean to you?
Have others or your environment played a role on how you think about these identities?
While colleges can be seen as race-neutral, campus environments are normatively White
and Eurocentric (Reason & Evans, 2007). For students who identify as white, campus climate is
reflective of their home environment, seen in a more positive light, and identity is not something
86

white students have to consider in contrast to their peers who identify as students of color
(Worthington, 2008). This seemed to be the case for Michael who, when asked these questions,
attributed his privilege for not being able to have to consider his racial identity. In the same way,
Michael, due to his invisible disability, felt like he did not have to consider this identity as others
would who have a more visible one.
Michael: I do not know if I have to think about that often. I know that’s a part of my own
privilege as an individual. I mean, I’m a white, straight guy, Christian, and come from an upper
middle-class family so, honestly, I do think about my identity too much…… Since I do not have a
physical disability, I don’t feel like I have the same maybe stigma that others do even if my
disability identity is a part of who I am. It’s just not something other people see or would notice
about me.
Darling (2013) asserts that those with less disabling conditions who are able to normally
participate in mainstream society seem to avoid associating with disability related organizations
or having strong ties to their identity, whether or not they reject an identity of disability pride.
This same reluctance of accepting a disability identity was also seen with two of the other
participants:
Margaret: I hold a lot of identities that are important to me. My cultural background means a
lot to me. As a person who identifies as white and Hispanic, I feel like I have to be thinking about
my identity often. Being an athlete was an identity that was definitely important throughout my
life…. I think I am willing to identify as a person with a disability but I don’t think I’ve come to
see it as a part of who I actually am or to attribute any deep meaning to it like I have with these
other identities. In fact, I feel like it’s hard because my particular disability is actually what took
87

away my identity of being an athlete from me. I can’t even get over that yet so I don’t think I am
in a place to accept that deeply in terms of who I am.
Megan: Even though I’m white and Asian, the identity that is most important to me is my
cultural identity as an Asian American. My mom really emphasized that throughout my life to
highlight how I had to work hard and do well in school…. there are cultural and familial
pressures to perform and be a certain type of person when it comes to school and my career and,
I think, my disability has always been seen as a barrier to get to those things or allow me to be
this person that I am supposed to be so there’s no way I can really say to anyone that it’s an
important identity and part of who I am.
For these two participants, their cultural identities rooted in hard work or in their
academic or athletic performance seemed to be at odds and threatened by their disability identity.
Middleton (1999) in a study with college students with disabilities, found that most of them
attributed negative experiences in their life to external forces. For example, parents, family,
friends, peers, and school environments often frame their disability negatively and many
experience bullying, belittlement, and abuse related to their condition. For Megan and Margaret,
their families had a significant influence on perceiving or having a negative view of their
disability identity. Lindgren (2004) suggests that, when a disability is acquired, it can be
perceived as an “other” within the self and can seem as threatening to an already established
sense of self.
Nondisabled parents of individuals with disabilities often have difficulty identifying with
the concept of disability pride or saliency with the identity because their own identities are bound
with their interactions in a “normal” society (Darling, 2013). Children who are unable to live up
to their parents’ expectations are less likely to think highly of themselves and this is especially
88

true of children with disabilities who are often not thought to be as the “ideal” children their
parents envisioned. Consequently, individuals with invisible disabilities, who have the privilege
of making a choice to disclose or associate with their disability, can opt not to because of a self-
destroying tension between appearance and their identity (Samuels, 2003). This tension of self-
disclosing and associating with a disability identity due to such pressures was present amongst
the participants.
Jordan: I think people would think that me saying my disability identity is important to me would
be kind of weird. I think people, like my parents, view a disability as a negative thing and kind of
like a medical thing that has gone wrong. I just think highlighting how important it is to who I
am would just be strange…. I definitely think how others perceive your identity matters. I mean I
just like said it was important to me but, honestly, I am reluctant to share because of how others
think about it so I’m kind of proving that point.
Jessie: When I shared that I had a disability or was feeling anxiety and restless in class, it was
hard for my parents to understand. They kept saying things like, “mija, estas bien no tienes
problemas haci” (daughter, you’re fine, you do not have problems like that) …..it was like they
were affirming me that nothing was wrong….It was easier for them to say that than to admit that
I had a disability. I think part of that is stigma but it’s also hard for them accept that they
weren’t able to help me or support me throughout all of my time in school and the fact that
something was actually wrong. That’s hard for them and I get it so I try to not really talk about
that with them too much or really identify strongly with it.
For Jordan and Jessie, while they identified as persons with disabilities and even held this
as an important part of who they were, they felt that other individuals in their lives would not
understand their experience or were not willing to accept them identifying in such a way. Rather
89

than challenging external forces, they found themselves going along with the perceptions,
standards, or expectations of others even if they expressed a disagreement with them. Cameron
& Swain (1999) explain that coming out as a person with a disability is a process of redefinition
of one’s personal identity through rejecting the tyranny of the “normative”, positive recognition
of impairment, and embracing disability as a valid social identity. However, this can be difficult
for individuals to do due to external forces, especially for individuals who develop this identity
years into their lives or those who have invisible disabilities. Depoy and Gilson (2004) have
suggested that, when individuals with disabilities achieve certain expectations or have a level of
appearing “normal” or acquire their disability later in life, they typically do not deny their
identities as people with disabilities but do tend to accept the societal norm of stigma and reject
the notion of disability pride. These exchanges with the subjects highlighted the difficulty of
participants having to negotiate their identity as a person with a disability and appearing
“normal”.
Darling (2013) notes how many individuals, especially in interactions with nondisabled
friends and even while encountering experiences of stigma, work through this process of
negotiating a “normalized” identity and that only a social justice framework can lead towards
embracing a disability identity. However, even as pride and activism appear to be increasing
along a social justice framework, this seems to only characterize a minority of the population of
people with disabilities in society. The reconceptualized model of multiple dimensions of
identity highlights that identity development occurs through not only individuals’ experiences
within different contexts that can influences constructions of identity, but also through
individuals’ active meaning making about these various and potentially competing influences
such as peer group interactions and encounters with stereotypes and biases (Rumann & Hamrick,
90

2010). This reality was evident amongst the subjects and their experiences as they made meaning
of their identity.
Next, participants were asked to recall their experiences making meaning of ableism and
meritocracy. For this study, the questions related to these themes sought to explore whether these
participants had an awareness or had taken steps to adopt a social justice framework related to
their identity. The question posed for participants was the following: B. Are you familiar with
the term “Ableism”? If so, where did you come to know about this term? It was noteworthy that
only one of our five participants were able to identify what ableism was.
Jordan: hmm, no, I haven’t heard of that. It’s an -ism so I’m assuming it has to do with a system
of some sort like capitalism, socialism, racism, sexism, or something.
Jessie: No, I don’t think I have heard of that. Is that something I’m supposed to know? Hahah..
I’m going to feel dumb for not knowing if I’m supposed to know what it means.
Megan: uh… no… haha.. I have no idea. I’m so sorry if I’m supposed to know for this interview.
What is it?
Michael: I believe I remember talking about it in my political science or, maybe, it was
sociology. Since you’re asking, I’m assuming it has to do with disability, but I don’t think I could
give you a definition.
Margaret: Yeah, its discrimination of people with disabilities because society is meant to benefit
those who have more privilege, essentially people who don’t have disabilities.
All participants, including Margaret who answered correctly, were given the following definition
of ableism after their response:
Ableism is defined as the practices and dominant attitudes in society that devalue and
limit the potential of persons with disabilities. These practices and beliefs assign inferior
91

value or worth to people who have developmental, emotional, physical or psychiatric
disabilities. In a society where ableism exists, non-disabled individuals are seen as the
standard of ‘normal’, which results in public and private places, services, education,
employment and other things in society being built or meant to serve 'normal' people,
thereby inherently excluding those with various disabilities. This means persons with
disabilities face many kinds of barriers on a daily basis. These can be physical,
attitudinal, or systemic. People who do not have a disability might not understand how
the world is wired for non-disabled people. It may be invisible to those who do not have
disabilities. It is sometimes not intentional, but in certain circumstances, it is very
intentional. (Stop Ableism, 2009)
After the term was defined and understood, participants were asked: C. Do you believe
that ableism exists in our society? If so, in what ways? All of the participants acknowledged the
existence of ableism and were able to provide examples of it. This included experiencing it
through many people in their lives and in society who had defaulted to having a negative view of
disability borrowed from the medical model.
Michael: I’m sure this still happens today…uhm, I guess when people have a physical disability
people can stare or feel pity on them. I would assume that people were once mistreated and
maybe looked down on. I do think that’s unfortunate. As a person with a disability, I think I’ve
been fortunate enough where that hasn’t happened to me personally.
Margaret: I do think that it exists just like I believe things like sexism and racism exist.
Unfortunately, we have a lot of progress to make as society to overcome these things. I think
people with disabilities just need to continue to make progress and eventually society will realize
these problems and not see others as less than or less capable.
92

Jessie: I think there’s a lot of stigma about mental health and disabilities that I think is a big
problem everywhere. Like I said earlier, like, I couldn’t really talk to my parents about anxiety
or ADHD because they wouldn’t understand it. They really just see it as a problem or something
that has gone wrong. For me, it’s not about trying to change my parents but prove to them that I
can work hard, be successful, and move forward.
Megan: I do think ableism exists. I think for me and others there’s an expectation of what
normal is or what is acceptable. I think that’s why people who don’t have disabilities that are
more physical aren’t as open. There’s a fear of maybe what people will think of you if they know.
You just want to be seen as not normal or like something is wrong.
Jordan: It definitely does exist. I know it does because I see it and experience it. It’s the reason
my parents don’t want to acknowledge or talk about it with me. I think having a disability is seen
like your somehow not whole as a person. Like somehow you can’t be normal.
Terms like “tainted” and “discounted” are used to define how people with disabilities are
often used in society and these ideas are highlighted in the media. This promotes the medical
model of disability, in which disability is regarded as an individual problem rather than a social
construct. Stanton-Salazar (2001) highlights that this is particular important within higher
education where, often, the burden is upon the student, their family, and community to find fit
into what is normalized and not upon the institution or dominant system they are a part of. In
essence, the academic learning, intellectual development, and persistence to degree completion
are dependent upon a student’s level of personal engagement or social integration into the social
and intellectual fabric of the school they are a part of. Participants seemed to be very aware of
this demand and pressure on people with disabilities. With this in mind, I wanted to gauge
93

whether it was similarly clear in their own experiences and how they made meaning ableism on a
personal level.
The next interview question asked to participants was: D. Have you experienced anything
like this in your personal life, perhaps from friends, family, work, or at the College? Some
subjects focused more generally on school:
Megan: When it came to school, my parents and teachers had expectations of me that I felt like I
needed to achieve in order to be normal. I felt like my disability was something that made me
less than and not normal. I don’t know, I really tried to see my disability as my own struggle that
I had to work through on my own and not worry too much about others.
Jessie: For years, it was hard to understand what was happening when I was having trouble in
school. I shared it with so many people but I didn’t get the help I needed. When I finally did get
accommodations, I feel like people made me feel like something was wrong with me or didn’t
want to believe it even though it was helping me overcome my issues with school. Maybe it was
my fault for not being able to describe what was happening well enough.
Other participants focused on experiencing ableism when it came to the classroom and receiving
their accommodations:
Jordan: My friends sometimes say things like “you’re lucky you get to take your time on tests”
or something like that. I could try to prove that their thinking is wrong but I let it go. It gets to me
at times. I’ve actually considered cutting down on some of my accommodations because I do feel
bad and don’t want to take advantage of anything or feel like I had more time than I needed.
Margaret: Honestly, I feel like the ableist ideas are even ingrained in me. I remember when I
talked to my dean about accommodations, it was a little weird. I didn’t want them because I felt
like it was admitting something was wrong with me. As I’ve had accommodations, my friends
94

and professors’ comment about whether I still need them and things like that because I appear
normal or nothing is different about me so that’s hard. I have thought about just really working
hard and trying to see if I can go without them but I’m scared.
Michael: Hmm I think I can see ableism in myself a bit. I guess it’s not really anyone’s fault but
my own. When I first came to the College, I thought that meant that I had worked hard and
achieved being normal I guess. Like I didn’t need accommodations anymore. I didn’t want to tell
my parents, did not seek out services, and wanted to prove that I could do it on my own. It was a
risk and I knew it but I did it anyways.
As subjects were asked about their personal experiences with ableism, all participants, on
some level, blamed themselves or held to tenets of the assumption that we are in a meritocratic
society. As it related to their disability, as Kluegel & Bobo (1993) highlight, these participants
often found it easier to blame themselves or their condition for not achieving or having difficulty
while not accounting for the possibility of structural or institutional factors that may perpetuate
ableism. Tate (1997) sharply critiques the claims of color blindness, neutrality and objectivity
related to meritocracy and explains how these false constructs often serve as veils for dominant
interests. The legal protections for race and ethnicity that civil rights activists won in the late
1950s and 1960s marked the end of racism as a salient issue in American society (Bonilla-Silva,
2006). Popularly, this shift gave rise to the notion that the public sphere was now truly
egalitarian and meritocratic, which meant that no one could make any excuses for not
succeeding in a seemingly fair system. This idea of meritocracy further perpetuates the
oppression of people with disabilities by communicating that the environment or system does not
need to change and it is not the problem: the individual is (Alvarado, 2010). Major and O’Brien
(2005) explain that those who believe that discrimination against the stigmatized is unjust and
95

prevalent are less likely to incorporate societal stigma into their self-concepts and perception.
Unfortunately, amongst the participants, even with the belief that ableism was present in society,
they found it more difficult to locate it in their lives and often resorted to blaming themselves or
giving into the pressures of an ableist society. For example, even when discussing academic
accommodations, which seek to create equity for students with disabilities, most participants felt
like receiving them was somehow an unfair advantage for them and even considered stopping
them.
Lastly, subjects were asked to consider how having a disability would continue to play a
role in their college experience and in their future career. The question posed was: E. Looking
forward, do you think your disability will play a role in your college, graduate school, or career
experience- positive, negative, both? In what ways? When asked this question, all participants
looked beyond school and academics. For them, having a disability within the realm of education
meant little other than receiving accommodations and so their responses seemed to be focused on
their future career plans.
Michael: I am sure that if it was a disability or condition that was bad enough it could
potentially be hard to do specific jobs. I think, for the most part, companies will hire whoever is
best for the job and I don’t think that a disability should change that if someone was the best
person to hire.
Megan: I am sure that if it was a disability or condition that was bad enough it could potentially
be hard to do specific jobs. I think for the most part companies will hire whoever is best for the
job and I don’t think that a disability should change that if someone was the best person to hire.
The sentiment that all participants had was the ableism was not a force or factor in
employment. With the belief in a meritocratic society, subjects felt that employers would hire
96

whoever was best for the job in their respective career fields. Subjects often commented that a
person’s disability should not get in the way or be a factor when it came to employment. This
presented a tension in the remarks and sentiments shared throughout the interviews. Meritocracy
operates on the belief that ableism or a person’s disability should not matter given its emphasis
on equal opportunity for all who work hard enough or are most skilled and trained for a position.
In order to further explore this tension, a follow up question was asked to participants: “If you
needed to disclose your disability to your future employer, do you believe that you would?”.
While participants wanted to believe the idea of meritocracy, their answers of not wanting to
disclose a disability to an employer further highlighted the tension they were feeling.
Jordan: I do not think I would need to. If my disability did become an issue, I would try to work
through it. I wouldn’t want people to have to feel like they have to do more than I need. I guess, I
don’t know. I don’t think I’ll need it.
Michael: I don’t think I would want to share that with my boss or anything. It makes sense in
school, but I can’t imagine me being in a place where I would want to share that with my boss at
work. If I couldn’t keep up with my work, it would probably be more about me.
Jessie: I think that its already really hard at least for me to feel confident about interviewing or
doing well in the job. I wouldn’t want to share that I may have further difficulties with the job. I
feel like it would change the way people view me and I already have my own insecurities.
These interactions showed how many participants hold to the idea of meritocracy while
attempting to minimize ableism and its impact in society and in their lives. A meritocratic
framework seems to have impacted how participants make meaning of their identity depending
on the various contexts they find themselves in. This was prevalent during the interview process
even with subjects being on the receiving end of ableism. In fact, all of the participants seemed
97

to resonate with negative feelings related to examples of ableism. They were able to affirm its
existence, provide possible examples in society, and even share specific cases in their own
personal lives. However, these experiences seemed to be perceived as their fault or problem and
events one is simply required to move on from, which further reinforced meritocratic ideas they
seemed to hold to.
Jessie: when I have talked to my friends, teachers and professors about my accommodations,
sometimes they say things like, “I don’t see you as disabled” or “you don’t seem like you have a
disability” …so it can be hard to have to explain or justify why I need accommodations. I just
ignore it most times.
Margaret: I didn’t always have accommodations and, since I started to need them after my
injury, I feel like people think that I am no longer hurt and I am using them as a way to make
school easier or cheat my way to make sure I get into grad school. It’s frustrating because
people can’t understand how this disability actually impacts me. At times, it makes me want to
not use them to try to prove I can earn my grades but it’s kind of annoying.
Michael: I need the use of a word processor so that means I have to have my laptop with me in
class. Some professors don’t like students having laptops because they can be distracted online
or whatever, so I get that, but I need it to actually take notes. I had a professor announce that
only kids with disabilities could have their laptops and that was the only exception so that made
it a little awkward for me being the only one with my laptop out so I just decided to go without it
and tried my hardest to pay attention.
Jordan: I had a very challenging chemistry class during my first semester, and I did okay
throughout the year. When finals were coming up and I talked to my professor about
accommodations, she said, “you’re doing so well in the class, do you really think you need the
98

extra time for the final?”. I didn’t know how to respond. I kind of just smiled and said thank you
and walked away. I was afraid to ask for accommodations for the final, it felt I was doing
something wrong. I was considering just studying hard and pushing through without any but I
asked for them last minute because I was afraid.
Megan: I feel like I work really hard and my parents seem to attribute my grades or GPA more
to the fact that I have accommodations rather than to my own work or intelligence. It’s really
hard at times but I can’t focus on changing how they feel. I just have to keep working hard and
hopefully they see it someday.
Not only do actual identities change over time, but also individuals may choose to present
themselves as having different identities depending on the situation. In their study, Olney and
Brockelman (2003) found that students with invisible disabilities have accepted their identity and
have no desire for a “cure” but, at the same time, are aware of the disadvantages of disclosing
their disability and being stereotyped or labeled incompetent. The study explains that, therefore,
for people with disabilities perception management becomes a sophisticated strategy used to
minimize negative consequences while trying to assure appropriate accommodations. Some of
these same sentiments were found amongst participants especially under the pressure of ableism
and meritocracy throughout this section of the interview process.
Summary of Findings for Research Question Three
Tenets of ableism and meritocracy can be internalized in making meaning processes even when
affirming their existence and experiencing them on a personal level
Identity development occurs within the larger historical, social, political, and cultural
contexts and suggests that identity does not exist outside contingent social realities and,
therefore, it is constantly changing and shifting contexts rather than fixed and stable (Jones &
99

Abes, 2013). The literature on campus climate for students with disabilities indicates that
students face an unwelcoming and chilly campus climate and barriers due to ableism (Myers &
Bastian, 2010; Bielke & Yssel, 1999). In environments like this, ableism and the myth of
meritocracy can often go hand in hand. Copley (2011) notes that ableism depends on maintaining
meritocracy- the myth that we can be self-sufficient if we are strong and independent enough.
However, from a social justice perspective, there is value in recognizing the necessity of
interdependence. Interdependence where people are necessary for physical, emotional,
community health and well-being and shows our value in others and communities (Copley,
2011). Ableism plays a powerful role in creating welcoming or unwelcoming educational
environments and research indicates that students with disabilities perceive their campus as
significantly less supportive than their peers without disabilities so it is critical to listen to their
experiences and the impact such environments may have (Brown & Broido, 2015).
When participants were asked about ableism, they had difficulty defining what it meant
but were able to affirm its existence once the term was clarified. Moreover, they were able to
identify examples in which they encountered experiences or situations where ableism was
present. However, participants often resorted to appealing to tenets of meritocracy to minimize
or dismiss its impact. On a general level, throughout the interview, subjects appealed to the
importance of diversity and inclusion and explained that it was unlikely for anyone to
intentionally think less of or mistreat others on the basis of their ability. For example, when
asked about their future careers, a majority of participants expressed having no concerns because
they felt places of employment should not perceive or judge others differently based on their
disability identity when applying for job opportunities. Nevertheless, when asked if they would
ever disclose their disability to an employer in an application or if a need arose, none of the
100

participants expressed a willingness to do so and insisted that hard work and their skills should
be sufficient and that, since they were hired, they ought to be capable of doing the work without
accommodations. This tension between recognizing ableism but holding to the ideas of
meritocracy was present amongst all participants throughout the interview process, specifically
relating to their disability identity.
To illustrate, when asked in what ways ableism exists today, in general, participants cited
examples related to individuals with visible disabilities. They explained that people could stare,
feel pity, or assume that individuals are not as smart, a whole person, or are inferior due to their
physical disability. As it related to invisible disabilities, only two participants highlighted stigma
around mental health but without mention to their own condition or saying the word disability.
When prompted for solutions, participants stated that they did not really know but three appealed
to meritocracy and said that, perhaps, people disabilities ignoring these things and working hard,
progressing, and being successful would challenge ableism. In an effort to be more specific,
subjects were asked for personal experiences and, after being prompted, participants willingly
shared a number of examples.
First, participants cited specific examples at the College. Jordan explained how his peers
often comment about him not appearing disabled and how he is fortunate to get all that extra
time due to his accommodations. Moreover, when Jordan has performed well in some of his
classes, faculty members have questioned his actual need for accommodations. Margaret has had
similar experiences. Since she began receiving accommodations for ongoing concussions during
her time at the College, many faculty members and peers would ask if she still really needed
them because she appeared “normal” to them. Even after she had explained that her condition
was more long-term, she received remarks about cheating the system to get into grad school and
101

wanting to get “easy As” because she seemed to be performing fine. Similarly, Michael shared
that he had been told by friends and professors that he did not look disabled, questioned if his
disability really impacts him, and received comments about taking the easy route with
accommodations. Despite having these experiences, the participants seemed to internalize tenets
of meritocracy. For instance, Michael, Jordan, Jessie and Margaret all considered stopping their
accommodations because they felt like they were doing something wrong or, perhaps, were
somehow cheating the system. Even though accommodations were meant to create equity, they
began accepting the notion that they were somehow inequitable towards their able-bodied peers.
Ultimately, participants were too afraid to stop their accommodations and kept utilizing them.
Nevertheless, it was clear that their motivation for keeping their accommodations was not about
access or achieving equity that was due to them. Rather, it was a fear of feeling like they were
not smart enough, could not handle their course load, and that their work would not be sufficient.
Thus, minimizing the impact and legitimacy of their disability while reinforcing ableist and
meritocratic views placed on them.
Next, participants cited examples related to their families and academics. Generally, all
participants shared the prevalence of stigma around issues of mental health and invisible
disabilities as examples of ableism. For instance, Megan and Jessie expressed not being able to
explain their anxiety with their parents or families due to cultural misconceptions around mental
health. Michael, Margaret, and Jessie also expressed difficulty in having to explain their
disability or defend the need for accommodations to people, specifically family, who could not
understand how their disability impacts them on a daily basis. In these cases, disability was
viewed as being inferior, a disease, or something to be ashamed of. For example, Margaret,
Jessie, and Megan recalled a number of occasions where their parents lectured them about not
102

publicly discussing their disability because people would think something was wrong with them.
Due to these interactions, participants felt that their disability identity and experience was not
something to be shared but to be hidden.
In addition, all participants highlighted the pressure of expectations placed on them and
experiencing ableist tenets. For example, Michael shared that whenever anyone found out or
talked about his disability, they would often comment that he appeared or seemed normal and
was “too smart to have a disability”. For him, this meant that his disability was a problem and it
resulted in a personal struggle he had to fight and work through in order to do all he could to
continue appearing “normal”. For Megan, Margaret, Jordan, and Jessie, their disability was often
pitted against cultural expectations. These expectations were about working hard, being
successful, not complaining or making excuses. This came in the form of demanding certain
grades, test scores, and a strong GPA. In particular, Megan and Jordan cited their Asian cultural
background as major influences behind certain academic expectations and a negative view of
their disability. Megan cited the idea of the “model minority” being present when her parents
lecture her and express the importance of meritocracy, including the need to “work hard and lift
yourself up by your bootstraps” to achieve success in America. In these conversations,
participants’ disability was discussed as something that was holding them back or a barrier in
meeting these standards. Even when participants met these standards, their families minimized
their success by saying they were given an easier route due to their accommodations. This led
participants to find fault in themselves or feeling not smart enough in comparison to peers or
family members. When asked about what each participant could do to address these experiences
of ableism, they, again, appealed to meritocracy. Their solutions involved just tolerating
103

experiences of ableism and proving people around them wrong through hard work and achieving
academic success.
It is common for students to demonstrate internalized ableism, including beliefs that
some disabilities are more acceptable than others and society rejects physical and mental
differences among people (Hutchen & Wolbring, 2012). When the atmosphere of a campus is
negative, students with disabilities internalize their impairment as their problem and not the
problem of others (Madriaga, 2007). As exhibited by the participants in this study, to accept and
internalize tents of ableism meant adhering and internalizing tenets of meritocracy as well. The
two seem to be two sides of the same coin. At best, it led the subjects to feel like they had to
work harder and perform at a certain level to be seen as normal, smart enough, or able-bodied. At
worst, it led them to consider attempting to go through their academics without the use of
accommodations to avoid the stigma and negative experiences related to their disability identity.
These internalized tenets of ableism and meritocracy not only impacted their college experience
but also how they processed and made meaning of their disability identity.
Tenets of ableism and meritocracy in meaning making process result in a willingness to identify
with a disability but resisting strong identity saliency
Rather than seeing the milestone of getting into college as a success, in light of managing
such external forces and examples of ableism, many see it as another step riddled with anxiety,
fear, and pressure of having to prove themselves and show that they belong. In difficult campus
climates, students can experience negative psychological reactions connected to internalized
ableism, self-doubt, fear, and stress caused by negative experiences, specifically from authority
figures (Evans et al., 2017). Often times, these attitudes present themselves as assuming students
with disabilities are lazy, incompetent, cheaters, or taking advantage of the system. Sheridan
104

(2001) found that, despite these forces, students are able to negotiate relationships and
sentiments and maintain a healthy self-perception but do make it a point to avoid situations
where barriers present themselves and find ways to ensure they have access and participation.
Nevertheless, these views often lead to setting a standard of normalcy and socializes people into
a stigmatized, medical view of disability, and a society where disability is to be identified,
sorted, and educated away or avoided. For students with disabilities, disability identity or
identification with a disability community, then, becomes a burden on them and not a source of
collective community or pride (Evans et al., 2017).
Prior to and after entering the College, participants experienced ableism that led them to
place limits to how much they identified with their disability. During the interview process,
participants shared how they had internalized or were told by others that having a strong saliency
related to their disability identity was to be avoided. For example, Jordan and Megan expressed
how their parents would have rules that would prohibit them from sharing or talking about their
disability around family and others. Whenever they wanted to discuss the topic or had questions,
it was ignored by their parents and appeared to them as something shameful. Similarly, Jessie
and Margaret, who were recently diagnosed with their conditions, had parents who expressed
negative opinions about their disability identity almost immediately. Specifically, both their
parents, on a number of occasions, assured them that this was only temporary, not a big deal, and
that nothing was actually wrong with them. These experiences with family led to participants not
being able to identify or see their disability identity in a positive light.
Moreover, during their time at the College, all participants expressed that, at times, it
seemed that rendering accommodations seemed like a burden on their professors or they feared
being perceived differently or unfavorably. Skinner (2007) found that, while faculty members are
105

willing to provide accommodations, they are, overall, lukewarm and neutral in terms of their
responses and attitudes towards them. In fact, even as faculty attitudes towards diversity become
more positive, their attitudes towards individuals with disabilities become less positive,
indicating that faculty may consider disability as an individual difference rather than an identity
or an aspect of diversity (Barnard et al., 2008). This means that faculty can tend to see disability
as a problem rather than positively as an important identity of the diverse community they are a
part of. Jordan, Megan, and Margaret shared that, when asking for accommodations, professors
would cite examples of students with disabilities cheating or lessening the standard of the course
but would follow up saying that they were sure they would not do such things. Michael recalled
on the first day of one of his classes that a professor was adamant on why having a laptop was
detrimental to learning for students but then openly said “but if you’re a disabled student than go
ahead and do it”. After that point, Michael shared that he did not want to use his accommodation
for a word processor because he did not want to be outed, graded unfairly, seen as a person who
did not value learning, or for his professor and his peers to view him differently. Participants
explained how these experiences made them feel like identifying as a student with disability
meant being intellectually and academic inferior or subpar with peers, which, consequently, led
them to distance themselves from a disability identity.
Lastly, as participants faced these challenges, there was minimal support or ability to
connect with peers who were also going through similar experiences. Denhart (2008) highlights
the importance and value of learning difference or disability identity-based community groups
that provide a space where students can share experiences, discuss issues, and find validation.
During the interview, most participants expressed feeling isolated and desiring others who they
could talk to about some of the issues and situations they encountered. However, only one
106

subject knew of a disability focused group on campus but was reluctant to join because she did
not feel right about joining due to only having a recent and, in her mind, temporary condition.
For all the subjects, identifying as a person with a disability was largely connected solely to
having academic accommodations and not a matter of identity saliency or pride, specifically for
those who had recently acquired their disability. Higgins (2002) suggests that those who have
had their disability longer and with more severe impairments are more likely to identify with the
disability community and, in contrast, those who acquire their disability later in their life were
more likely to experience a sense of loss and to identify with the medical model. In fact, those
with less disabling conditions who are able to normally participate in mainstream society seem to
avoid associate with disability related organizations or having strong ties to their identity,
whether or not they reject an identity of disability pride (Evans et al., 2017). These contextual
influences and shifting salience of identity affect an individual’s interactions with particular
social groups and lead them to assign an understanding of the emotional connection to and
relative significance of group membership (Tajfel, 1972). Due to the lack of these types of
resources, participants ultimately felt that their disability was their own problem to deal with and
reinforced having a resistance to a strong disability identity saliency.
Over the course of this chapter, subject portraits were offered and findings and key
themes were explored through each research question that guide this study. These questions
sought to provide participants the ability to share their experiences, narratives, and to determine
the major factors and influences that impacted how they came to understand and make meaning
of their identity as people with disabilities. The subjects shared a wide range of reflections
related to their experiences throughout their lives and time at the College. The analysis of data
107

illuminates key findings and themes that came forth from the research questions that guided the
study. These include the following:
Research Question 1: How did these college students come to identify themselves as a person
with a disability and what role did their social and educational surroundings have in this
process?
• Awareness of disability is a gradual and ongoing process
• Familial and educational environments significantly impact awareness of disability
identity
Research Question 2: Through their experiences and challenges, what have these college
students come to learn about their identity and how have they, specifically, made meaning of
their identity as a person with disability in light of these events?
• Disability Identity is not static and is continually shaped by experiences and
challenges
• Academic institutions may offer limited to minimal support beyond academic
adjustments which means disability identity in college is experienced only through
the narrow lens of accommodations
Research Question 3: What, if any, tenets of meritocracy and ableism have these students
internalized or contested in their meaning making process in an age of academic meritocracy
within higher education and what impact does this have on how they view their disability
identity?
• Tenets of ableism and meritocracy can be internalized in making meaning processes
even when affirming their existence and experiencing them on a personal level
108

• Tenets of ableism and meritocracy in meaning making process result in a
willingness to identify with a disability but resisting strong identity saliency
Through the subjects’ own recollections and reflections, these findings reveal various
precipitating experiences, situations, events, and figures that shaped how they have come to
make meaning of their disability and identity. By exploring their life histories in their own
words, a better understanding was gained and these several key findings emerged. Chapter 5 will
follow and identify implications for practice and areas for future research.

109

CHAPTER FIVE: IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE AND FUTURE RESEARCH
The previous chapter provided an analysis of data aimed to address the research questions
regarding understanding the meaning-making experiences of students with disabilities and how
this interacts with their contexts, social identity salience, and core identity valued characteristics.
A major focus of this study is to explore the lived experiences of students with disabilities and
how they shape their perception of themselves, academics, and institutions that they are a part of.
The findings from the subjects’ own narratives and reflections, revealed much in regard to
understanding concepts like disability, identity, ableism, and meritocracy. By exploring their life
histories in their own words, a better understanding was gained and several key findings emerged
as to how individual come to make meaning of their disability and identity. Based on these
findings, this chapter will provide implications for practice on a micro, mezzo, and macro level
for practitioners working with students with disabilities. This will be followed by a discussion of
areas for future research and a conclusion drawing from several of the key ideas and findings
from this study.
Implications for Practice
The implications for practitioners are wide ranging. While helpful for practitioners,
faculty, and staff alike, these findings are specifically meant for individuals working closely with
students with disabilities, including student affairs and disability resources office staff. These
practitioners play a critical role in articulating a conceptualization or model of disability to the
students they work with as well as the broader campus community (Evans et al., 2017). In light
of this, this study, which focused on the lived experiences and narratives of students with
disabilities, would be most applicable to practitioners in this role. This study sought to answer
the following research questions:
110

1. How did these college students come to identify themselves as a person with a disability
and what role did their social and educational surroundings have in this process?
2. Through their experiences and challenges, what have these college students come to learn
about their identity and how have they, specifically, made meaning of their identity as a
person with disability in light of these events?
3. What, if any, tenets of meritocracy and ableism have these students internalized or
contested in their meaning making process in an age of academic meritocracy within
higher education and what impact does this have on how they view their disability
identity?
In order to answer these questions, data was collected through asking questions related to
three areas in the subjects’ life histories. The first area was the participants’ formative years and
life experiences, including family, culture, significant events, and community and social
influences and how these things impacted their view of ability. The second area focused on past
and current experiences around schooling, specifically relating to identity formation and their
disability. Lastly, the third area, allowed participants to reflect on the idea of meritocracy and its
pervasiveness in their academic experiences and its impact on how they make meaning of their
identity as a student with a disability.
This data was able to produce a number of themes and findings that were outlined in
Chapter 4. These findings allowed for several practice implications to emerge specifically for
those working closely with this student population. Therefore, the focus will be placed on these
practitioners with a focus on implications for practice on a macro, mezzo, and micro level within
institutions of higher education. The macro will focus on developing a critical mindset amongst
the campus community to create institutional awareness. The mezzo will focus on the disability
111

resource office level and the types of deliberate and intentional resources that can be afforded to
students with disabilities. Lastly, the micro level will focus on direct work with students with
disabilities and how to empower students with disabilities and their narratives while providing
holistic support as a matter of practitioner and institutional responsibility. The chapter will then
close with areas for future research followed by a conclusion.
Macro: Critical Mindset and Institutional Awareness of Disability
Historically, higher education has defined itself by whom it excludes rather than by
whom it includes (Carlson, 2016). In fact, the institutions that are considered to be the most
prestigious are also those with the lowest rates of admission. Built into institutions of higher
education is the meritocratic idea that hard work and performance lead to improvement and
attainment of life opportunities. Moreover, colleges and universities perpetuate beliefs found in
the larger society that are still based on medical or rehabilitation models, which gives little
attention to environmental considerations or the perspectives of people with disabilities (Brown
et al., 2016). However, higher education institutions are at their best when they invite, welcome,
and adapt to the broadest possible range of individuals who can contribute to and meet the
standards of educational institutions, recognizing the discriminatory history of determining for
minoritized others their inability or ability to contribute or benefit (Evans et al., 2017).
The participants’ narratives and experiences highlighted the tension that they felt in
embracing their disability identity due to the external pressures they faced at the College. They
perceived that, within the College, their identity was not one to be proud of or embrace like other
identities but, rather, one to avoid. While institutions have worked hard to value and create a
more diverse student population with more inclusive environments, it seems like ability or
disability identity if often not considered in these discussions. However, what would it look like
112

if practitioners took steps to ensure that there was institutional commitment to disability as a
critical component of a diverse campus community? Based on the experiences from the subjects,
there are some practical steps that practitioners can take to ensure the full participation and
access of all students.
In order to begin this work, first, it is important for practitioners to identify and locate
their positionality and how they personally make meaning of disability. Guzman and Balcazar
(2010) highlight that, how practitioners conceptualize and make meaning of disability, implicitly
and explicitly will influence the type of services offered. This process can include examining
current practices on an individual and organizational level and understanding what these things
may be communicating about ability. For instance, this may include the decision of offices to
include the word “disability” in their title rather than “accessibility” and what subtle messaging
this may send to the campus community. Reid and Knight (2006) found that materials and
messages given by staff working with students with disabilities and their offices can subtly
exclude students with disabilities, do not affirm students’ cultural contexts, and reflect white
Eurocentric notions of merit. Therefore, practitioners may be able to construct more culturally
aware and inclusive messaging regarding disability and disability identity. For several of our
participants, their introduction to their disability came through practitioners reviewing and
discussing their accommodations with them. For most of them, it was a positive experience that
allowed them to start making meaning of their identity and highlighted the importance role
practitioners have in how they frame the concept of disability.
Next, practitioners can start considering how to get institutional buy in from other
stakeholders on how to promote disability identity as a part of student diversity. Hackman (2008)
found that, in order to create inclusive resources that mitigate the effects of barriers, educators
113

and administrators should consider students’ racial, ethnic, gender, class, sexual orientation,
religious, and disability identity. Unfortunately, when implementing policies, practices, and
structures, there can be a lack of considering minoritized identities, specifically students with
disabilities. Without such consideration, it can be difficult to address the holistic needs of
students and provide equitable opportunities for students to succeed. Moreover, Mamiseishvili &
Koch (2011) highlight that disability resources offices cannot be the only staff members working
with students with disabilities and its work cannot be limited to solely providing
accommodations. There must be more comprehensive help and collaboration across student
services to address the needs and provide guidance for students in order to create more inclusive
and supportive campus environments.
Practitioners can begin with collaborating with campus intercultural or multicultural
offices in order to ensure that there is an inclusion of people with disabilities in conversations
regarding campus diversity and social justice. This can allow for greater messaging and
institutional awareness in order to reduce stigma and lead to better holistic support. This may
also involve creating a campus wide committee composed of staff, faculty, and students that is
directly working with those practitioners leading disability resources offices to ensure access and
removal of possible barriers. Strange (2002) state that the subjective views or social
constructions of environmental participants make up the socially constructed environment. This
means that how peers and community members feel about students with disabilities has a major
effect on how they will treat these students since attitudes motivate the behaviors in which
individuals engage (Olkin, 2012). Perceptions that faculty, staff, and able-bodied students have
about the experiences of impaired individuals play an important role in the extent to which they
intervene to improve the environment for these students (Evans et al., 2017).
114

These practical steps can be an effective and valuable way of increasing awareness of
disability and including this identity under the umbrella of diversity (Kalivoda, 2009). Until
disability is seen as an important social identity and given the weight of other identities, such as
race, gender, and social class, it will not be given serious attention in or out of the classroom
(Evans et al., 2017). By practitioners engaging in this type of work, they can ensure that there is
a campus wide commitment to accessibility and inclusion without being the sole staff
responsible to ensure this for student with disabilities (Huger, 2011).
Any work towards social justice and equity by practitioners for students with disabilities
must begin by viewing them as unique and essential members of their diverse campus
communities. Practitioners can be encouraged that this type of work will not only lead to
community wide awareness and acceptance but institutions taking responsibility to ensure
inclusive and accessible policies and practices for students with disabilities.
Mezzo: Deliberate and Intentional Educational Programming
On a general level, education of others about disability is one of the most important
pieces of student academic success (Kurth & Mellard, 2006). This means practitioners engaging
with campus partners to provide training for students, staff, and, specifically, faculty regarding
things like appropriate language and terminology, best practices for managing accommodations,
updates on legislation, access to technology, effective programming and suggestions to increase
access and inclusion (Evans et al., 2017). The importance of these was highlighted amongst the
subjects. During the interview process, all of the participants expressed that their disability
identity at the College was only experienced through and limited to the academic
accommodation process. Several of these students expressed a desire for support groups,
workshops for skill development and social skills, and, specifically, tools with communicating
115

their needs to faculty members. A lack of programming in these areas, led to the participants
having difficulty with transitions and advocating for themselves when needed. Consequently, by
focusing on educational programming for faculty and for students, practitioners can take steps to
cultivate environments that can result in a more positive and supportive experience for students
with disabilities.
Much of the experiences, both negative and positive, that the subjects recalled were tied
to their interactions or experiences in the classroom, specifically with their faculty members.
Students with disabilities report significantly higher levels of faculty interaction compared to
other students and their academic success is often connected to perceived faculty members’
attitudes and behaviors (Hedrick et al., 2010; Kurth & Mellard, 2006). In fact, faculty are the
most important people affecting both the classroom environment and the success of students with
disabilities in college (Evans et al., 2017). Therefore, on a mezzo level, it may be worthwhile for
practitioners to work closely with faculty members in creating inclusive environments. However,
few faculty and graduate teaching assistants have any knowledge of how to work effectively with
students with disabilities and have not received any training about creating inclusive classroom
environments (Ouellett, 2004). Moreover, studies indicate that there is great variability in the
experiences students with disabilities have with faculty, but at best, only half of faculty seem
well prepared to support the success of these students (Evans et al., 2017). Even if faculty are
willing to provide necessary accommodations for students with disabilities and feel admiration
towards them, many indicate feeling pity, awkwardness, embarrassment, and not knowing what
to do during interactions (Bruder & Morgo-Wilson, 2010). This highlights that faculty members
may want to be helpful in working with students with disabilities but may not have the
knowledge, resources, or training to do so.
116

To improve this, practitioners working with students with disabilities can be in close
partnership with the academic affairs office and faculty members to offer training, workshops,
question and answer sessions, and other sessions to help cultivate and grow the attitudes,
knowledge, and experience of faculty members. As many as 84% of university faculty feel they
would benefit from additional training about working with students with psychiatric and learning
disabilities (Brockelman, Chadsey, & Loeb, 2006). Over the last few years, many institutions
have developed centers or offices dedicated to teaching and learning as resources for faculty
members that can serve as a strong partnership and collaborative partners with disability
resources offices. These training sessions could be tailored to the important and critical issues
that faculty perceive in their work with students with disabilities, which can differ by context.
Moriarty (2007) found that faculty members face certain barriers in gaining inclusive practices,
including lack of an inclusive mindset, lack of knowledge about pedagogy, high teaching loads,
lack of time for instructional development, and lack of institutional support. In order to combat
such barriers, practitioners can develop faculty partnerships in order to form teams of individuals
who has vested interests or see the value in universal design (Arendale & Poch, 2008). In
addition, studies have found that incentives to both part-time and full-time faculty, such as travel
stipends, summer salary, course release, and other benefits can lead to an increase in faculty
participation in training or pilot programs that can benefit working with students with disabilities
(Evans et al., 2017). Moreover, disability resources offices can develop print or website material
that can provide helpful tips, teaching strategies, and advice regarding working with students
with disabilities that faculty can refer to given the limited time they may have. Research findings
suggest that positive outcomes are associated by training faculty on how to interact and work
with students with disabilities, including faculty being more willing to provide accommodations
117

on exams, are fairer and more sensitive to student needs, and are more receptive to students'
disclosure of learning disability status (Murray, Lombardi, Wren, & Keys, 2009).
Lastly, practitioners would be helped by developing a means for faculty to provide
feedback about experiences in the classroom. Faculty members are responsible for rendering
accommodations and, often, are the first to see how students perform academically and so their
input is critical in how to best support students. When faculty members see the college as a
source of support in implementing accommodations for college students with learning
disabilities, they are more likely to participate and engage in implementing course
accommodations (Bourke, Strehorn, & Silver, 2000). This will allow for and facilitate ongoing
communication between practitioners and faculty which can be extremely helpful when issues
may arise working with students with disabilities. By gaining feedback from faculty and
students, practitioners can better balance student and faculty needs and improve services based
on the feedback received. This process can be done through surveys, keeping a running list of
concerns that arise throughout the academic year, conducting question and answer sessions with
stakeholders, or formulating an interdisciplinary group. By implementing such a feedback loop
with faculty, they will feel more involved, considered, and aware of how to support students.
When this occurs, faculty tend to agree more frequently with a student’s need for academic
accommodations, particularly when they have been trained about disabilities and have a greater
confidence on how to work with students who may have specific needs and support (Murray et
al., 2009).
Next, practitioners could make a positive impact by through efforts in student
programming. Students with disabilities spend more time on academic tasks or can feel anxiety
with social situations than their nondisabled peers, resulting in fewer opportunities for co-
118

curricular activities and engagement (Markoulakis & Kirsh, 2013). However, the engagement of
students with disabilities is a critical component that impacts student academic success (Kurth
and Mellard, 2006). Therefore, by providing opportunities and access to student engagement,
practitioners can make a significant and effective impact on the experiences of students with
disabilities. On a basic level, this means that practitioners can collaborate with campus partners
to ensure that physical spaces are accessible or that icebreakers or programming does not exclude
students with mobility, social, communication, or developmental disabilities (Wolf & Brown,
2014). In particular, practitioners can facilitate student development by creating socially just
events that move beyond “disability” or “deficiency-centered” programming including targeting
areas like leadership, self-advocacy, community services, skills acquisitions, and cultural
programming (Evans et al., 2017).
For example, participants in this study shared that they wished there was support for
students with disabilities that would allow them to develop skills or be able to share fears,
anxieties, and experiences with others who could connect with them. On a practical level,
practitioners can develop a disability-based student group or organizations that could focus on
educational programming. Since peer support is important to all students and students with
disabilities have reported difficulty in making friends and finding support groups, establishing
this type of group can create significant support systems for students. These types of groups can
be significantly impactful in the meaning making process, specifically as it relates to disability
identity. Research shows that those with less disabling conditions who are able to normally
participate in mainstream society seem to avoid having strong ties to their disability identity.
However, disability pride, activism, and strong ties to identity are most common among
individuals when they are able to have interactions and develop relationships with others who
119

share similar contexts, experiences, and situations. With this type of group, individuals with
disabilities are able to maintain their self-esteem over the life course through immersion and
connection with a community of peers that can provide friendship, mutual aid, and an alternative
worldview where disability is not a negative attribute (Evans et al., 2017).
These groups can also have a programming aspect that including covering subjects like
improving social skills, e-mail etiquette, communicating with faculty members, and other
applicable topics that could benefit students. These groups and opportunities for programming
can benefit students with disabilities in areas that research shows they may struggle. For
example, self-awareness, self-assessment, and the ability to explain functional limitations in
relation to learning and living are essential for thriving in college but students with disabilities
struggle in these areas and are not taught this in secondary education (Evans et al., 2017). Since
the expectation in higher education is for students with disabilities to explain their functional
limitations and self-advocate, practitioners would do well to help provide skills for students to do
this. A practical step may be practitioners providing a program during orientation to help
students know how to communicate academic expectations in a college environment. Various
programming could be included throughout the year and during significant transitions, including
avoiding the “sophomore slump”, getting an internship, traveling abroad, graduation and career
transition, and many others, to better support students as they encounter potential barriers or
attempt to navigate challenging or unknown situations. Practitioners that are able to provide a
space for students to connect with peers with disabilities and promote social engagement of
students through programming in addition to providing accommodations and promoting access
will have greater success in engaging students earlier in their academic career, which, in turn,
will lead to better academic outcomes and positive experiences (Evans et al., 2017).
120

Micro: Empowering Student Narratives and Providing Holistic Support
As interviews were conducted with the participants, many expressed that this was the first
time they had been allowed to share their memories, recollect, discuss, and reflect on their
disability identity. For many of the subjects, they were often not involved in their
accommodation process and felt that their feelings, opinions, and questions regarding their
disabilities were often disregarded or unaddressed. Shakespeare (2006) emphasizes the
importance of and the fact that the concept of “nothing about us, without us” must be central to
the worldwide disability movement and creating equitable and just environments. This means
that the experiences and narratives of people with disabilities must be considered and guide
policies, decisions, and practices. While any work to create inclusive and accessible
environments will involve able-bodied individuals, none should be made without prioritizing the
need to hear and consider the input and experiences of people with disabilities.
With this in mind, practitioners can provide a space for students with disabilities to share
their experiences by making adjustments to their intake and initial assessment process. This can
be critical for first years and students who are transferring in or transitioning into a new
institution. Cole and Cawthon (2015) found that less than 10% of students with disabilities
reporting having any transition plan when entering college. Moreover, Barnard-Brak, Sulak,
Tate, and Lechtenberger (2010) found that students with disabilities, especially those with non-
visible disabilities, have a hard time and are often unable to explain the depth of their disability
or manner in which it may affect their classroom participation or academic performance. During
the interview process, all participants shared having this same difficulty for various reasons,
including not being involved in their accommodation process, not knowing their disability well
enough, or not being able to explain the connection between their condition and academic
121

experiences. Research shows that this is particularly seen in students who were not actively
engaged in the accommodation and transition process during secondary education or are not
comfortable with their disability status (Barnard-Brak et al., 2010). Implementing a process that
will allow students to reflect on their experiences, articulate their academic difficulties related to
their disability, and note what accommodations have or have not worked for them in previous
experiences will allow them to develop skills related to self-advocacy, self-determination, and a
better mastery of speaking about their disability.
Practically, this means implementing an intake process that highlights student narratives.
An assessment like this could include questions that are open ended and can lead to reflection
and a deeper understanding of a student’s disability and their needs. This might involve asking
students to describe their disability in their own words and its effects on their ability to access
their college environment, allowing them to list and provide what accommodations or assistance
has helped, asking students what types of activities, groups, hobbies they want to engage in, if
they foresee any barriers, and providing a list of functional effects for students to review and
possibly choose from if they are unable to communicate an impairment. Practitioners may also
encourage students to continue to think about barriers and to check in with the disability resource
office if any further issues should arise. This can also mean the disability resource office creating
opportunities to check in with students more frequently to see how things are progressing. This
can occur a month into the semester, during midterms, prior to finals, or having regular check ins
at the start of each semester. By doing this, students can be better able to articulate and describe
their disability, their experiences, and develop their self-advocacy.
In addition, by interacting on a regular basis with students, student feedback can lead to
practitioners identifying themes, concerns, or patterns that can lead to policy or institutional
122

changes that can allow for more access and inclusivity. Currently, most assessments and intake
processes are done from a medical or functional limitation model that simply assess
documentation, prior history, and give accommodations based on medical conditions or
deficiencies. However, this type of processes is not balanced enough to account for a student’s
self-report or previous experiences. A social justice approach to assessments and intake
processes seeks to view students through a holistic lens by bringing forth their narratives and
trusting them to be experts on their own lives rather than simply assigning them a label or
assigning expertise to a third-party medical provider (Evans et al., 2017). This will give
practitioners a better understanding of a student’s history, strengths, weaknesses, and multiple
identities. Moreover, it will ensure accommodations are provided to ensure equal access and
remove barriers for each individual student while avoiding a limitation-based approach to
accommodations. More importantly, it challenges the ableist and meritocratic idea that students
and their conditions are the problem and must work hard to adjust to their environment to
succeed. Instead, this approach tailors accommodations based on the student’s narrative and the
environmental barriers they perceive rather than broadly linked to a disability type.
Lastly, practitioners can offer resources and outreach through the lens of a student’s
multiple identities. Evans et al. (2017) notes that students have varied experiences, and as a result
of the comparatively underdeveloped literature base, they, along with all other students, should
be seen as individuals with multiple intersecting identities and various needs. Inclusion results
when members of the community, particularly those in power, are sensitive to the needs of others
and act in ways that make them feel welcome (Gilles & Dupuis, 2013). Practically, on the most
basic level, practitioners can make sure that there is consistent outreach and clear communication
about the process of accommodations in order for all community members to be aware of. This
123

means having it broadly advertised during orientation, on syllabi statements, in faculty, staff and
student trainings, on the institution’s website, and through marketing materials given to campus
partners. This will communicate to students that the institution has a commitment to ensuring
that all aspects of campus life are accessible.
In addition, this means collaborating with a variety of campus and community partners to
support accessibility and offer comprehensive and holistic support of students. In working with
students with disabilities, it is important for practitioners to know when and how to make
referrals to services on campus, like the counseling center, or if institutions do not have services,
to community-based resources. In addition to the disability stigma and the similar pressures of
college that their peers face, students with disabilities will need to have a knowledge of services
as they face a number of other unique challenges. For example, students with disabilities, and
specifically those with invisible disabilities, are at greater risk for increased alcohol use (Higher
Education Research Institute, 2011). In comparison to their able-bodied peers, students with co-
occurring disabilities were 9.76 times more likely to have an addiction diagnosis (Bernert et al.,
2012). Moreover, disability status is a significant risk factor for intimate partner violence (Smith,
2008). Practitioners can be proactive rather than reactive by ensuring that students are aware and
knowledgeable about how to access services.
In summary, from a macro level, practitioners can focus on developing a critical mindset
amongst the campus community to create institutional awareness. This can be done by reflecting
on where they are positionally and how they make meaning of disability. In addition, there
should be a commitment to guide institutions to consider disability identity as a major part of
diversity and as one of the many diverse identities that students hold. On a mezzo level,
practitioners should prioritize deliberate and intentional educational training. First, this means
124

creating a partnership with faculty in order to ensure that they have the knowledge, information,
and tools necessary to create inclusive and accessible academic environments for all students. In
addition to working with faculty, practitioners can tailor and provide programming opportunities
in ways that can significantly help students with disabilities, specifically in areas of self-
advocacy, skill acquisition, and the ability to connect with peer support. Lastly, on a micro level,
practitioners should seek ways to empower student narratives and provide resources that
holistically support students with disabilities. It is important to note that each institution has
unique characteristics that will shape the disability resource office and its staff and, thus, it is
important to design institution-specific interventions when engaging students with disabilities
(Brown & Broido, 2015). Nevertheless, it is critical for higher education professional to identify
and address ways in which ableism shapes the experiences of members of our campus
communities and it is the hope that these steps are practical and general enough to move towards
this end. In these ways, practitioners can cultivate tenets of equity and access by supporting
student agency, advocating for inclusive practices and policies, educating the campus
community, and modeling social justice in their daily interactions (Evans et al., 2017).
125

Figure 3. Practical Implications for Practitioners
Areas for Future Research
Research on disability in higher education is, as a whole, limited, dated, and
compromised by paradigmatic and procedural limitations (Vaccaro, Daly-Cano, & Newman,
2015; Pena, 2014). For many years, existing research did not accord with people with disabilities
own explanations and experiences and was often based on a medical and rehabilitation model
with little consideration to environmental structures (Brown et al., 2016). Moreover, much
research can be narrowly focused and assumes that all participants with the same disability label
have the same experiences without consideration to the multiple identities and lived experiences
of people with disabilities (Evans et al., 2017). In addition, critical scholarship in higher
education rarely addresses disability and disability identity. This study hopes to offer some work
in an area of study that is fertile and also provides numerous topics for future research. Many of
126

the topics covered in this dissertation are unresearched and can inform practice and policy in
very tangible ways that can have a direct impact on students with disabilities.
Critical scholarship and research focused on student experiences and practical
applications for professionals are much needed in this area. Student affairs professionals should
consider structural, programmatic, behavioral, and attitudinal implications for disability within
their own practice, unit, division, and institution as they work to create a more socially just living
and learning environment for students with disabilities (Evans et al., 2017). By having research
and studies that locate the source of participants’ problems in an inequitable social structure
rather than in the participants themselves, prevailing stigma can be challenged, and professionals
can begin working towards more accessible and inclusive campus communities.
Putman (2005) argues that understanding disability identity development has been
important for collective action but there has been an inability in research to describe or quantify
it in a way that guides our intellectual understanding of disability. Therefore, future research
should be done around disability identity as an important area to study, specifically under the
umbrella of diversity. Since diversity within a community must be apparent to produce a space
that is welcoming and inclusive in order to lessen feelings of otherness and stigma, practitioners
must be taught and trained by research relating to this area and students with disabilities. This
research is worthwhile because when students with disabilities are visible, others in the
community see the realities of the lives of these students and awareness of their capabilities and
experiences is raised and seen (Evans et al., 2017).
While this dissertation focused on some of these areas, it was limited to students with
invisible disabilities. It would be fascinating to study students with visible disabilities and how
they have made meaning of their disability and the differences found between their narratives
127

and those of students with invisible disabilities like those in this study. Another area of potential
interest would be identifying faculty or staff members who identify as person with disabilities
and how they navigate providing accommodations to students and work through the pressures of
ableism and meritocracy in similar academic institutions.
Conclusion
Until recently, people with disabilities were, at best, hidden from public view in
institutions or at home and those who ventured out in public had to take significant measures to
hide or avoiding drawing attention to their conditions. In fact, some cultures have practiced
infanticide to avoid the stigma of disability or, in others, disability is only celebrated in moments
like heroism in a war or as a sympathy or to recognize individuals who have achieved a level of
“normalcy” (Evans et al., 2017). Michalko (2002) highlights how our society had adopted a
medicalized view of disability and is deeply engaged in categorizing, sorting, and imagining a
world in which abnormality is to be identified and educated away. He notes that one of the most
‘abnormal’ things about being ‘normal’ is attending to its production (Michalko, 2002). This
categorization and ableism found its way to colleges and universities under the guise of
meritocracy.
Underhile and Cowles (1998) found that colleges have historically categorized
individuals based on individual identities rather than recognizing that individuals hold multiple
identities. The issue with this division for people with disabilities is that an individual’s disability
is expected to explain all of their life experiences and presumes a similarity of experiences
amongst all people with disabilities (Erevelles & Minear, 2010). This is further compounded by
the forces of meritocracy, ableism, and the fact that universities still function under the
assumption that there are singular right or best ways to learn, teach, communicate, move, and
128

work and, thereby, privilege those who carry out these functions as prescribed and oppressing
those who use other methods (Evans et al., 2010).
However, Kraus (2008) highlights that individuals negotiating disability identity are not
simply reacting to their environments, they are also agents of their own development, active
players within their changing environments. The purpose of this study was to bring to life the
narratives and experiences of people with disabilities and how they have made meaning of their
identity through a life history study. By exploring and listening to participant’s life histories, an
understanding of the subject’s worldviews, belief systems, identity formation, institutional and
internal barriers, themes, patterns, and lessons for accessibility emerged. By studying an under
researched population, this study is able to offer both practitioner and researcher-oriented
implications.
It is my hope that this dissertation and future research in these areas can provide students
with disabilities and other opportunities to search for significance, engage in meaning-making,
and find benefits associated with disability that provides a context for understanding and coming
to a personal acceptance of disability as an identity (Dunn & Burcaw, 2013). Self-worth amongst
individuals with disabilities has increased by reframing this identity as part of one of the diverse,
cultural minority groups in our society (Evans et al., 2017). This positive status has allowed for
collective empowerment and a connection amongst people who have a sense of a common
identity and can bond over narratives and experiences, including the barriers of ableism,
meritocracy, and the desire for equity for their group in society. Most importantly, my hope is
that practitioners find it essential to consider students with disabilities as the source and starting
point for addressing these issues by considering them as the experts, meaning makers, and those
129

with lived experiences that should inform the way forward in our efforts to do the transformative
work that will lead to access and equity for all.

130

References
Abes, E. (2009). Theoretical borderlands: Using multiple theoretical perspectives to challenge
inequitable power structures in student development theory. Journal of College Student
Development 50(2), 141-156.

Abes, E. & Jones, S. (2013). Identity development of college students: Advancing frameworks for
multiple dimensions of identity. San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey-Bass.

Abes, E. S., Jones, S. R., & McEwen, M. K. (2007). Reconceptualizing the model of multiple
dimensions of identity: The role of meaning-making capacity in the construction of
multiple identities. Journal of College Student Development, 48,1-22.

Alvarado, L. A., (2010). Dispelling the meritocracy myth: Lessons for higher education and
student affairs educators. The Vermont Connection, 31. 10-20.

Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.

Arendale, D., & Poch, R. (2008). Using universal design for administrative leadership, planning,
and evaluation. In J. L. Higbee & E. Goff (Eds.), Pedagogy and student services for
institutional transformation: Implementing universal design in higher education (pp.
419– 436). Minneapolis: Center for Research on Developmental Education and Urban
Literacy, College of Education and Human Development, University of Minnesota.
Retrieved from http://cehd.umn.edu/ passit/docs/PASS-IT-Books.pdf

Ashmore, J., & Kasnitz, D. (2014). Models of disability in higher education. In M. Vance, N. E.
Lipsitz, & K. Parks (Eds.), Beyond the Americans with Disabilities Act: Inclusive policy
and practice in higher education (pp. 21-34). Washington, DC: NASPA—Student
Affairs Administrators in Higher Education.

Atkinson, R. (1998). The life story interview. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Baker, K. Q., Boland, K., & Nowik, C. M. (2012). Survey of faculty and student perceptions of
persons with disabilities. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability , 25 (4),
309–329.

Baldridge, D. C., & Swift, M. L. (2013). Withholding requests for disability accommodation:
The role of individual differences and disability attributes. Journal of Management , 39
(3), 743– 762.

Ball, S. J., & Goodson, I. F. (1985). Understanding teachers: Concepts and contexts. In S. J. Ball
& I. F. Goodson (Eds.), Teachers’ Lives and Careers (pp. 1-26). London, UK: The
Falmer Press.

Banks, J. A. (2013). Multicultural education: Characteristics and goals. In J. A. Banks & C. A.
McGee-Banks (Eds.), Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives (8th ed., pp. 3–
23). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
131

Barnard, L., Stevens, T., Oginga Siwatu, K., & Lan, W. (2008). Diversity beliefs as a mediator to
faculty attitudes toward students with disabilities. Journal of Diversity in Higher
Education , 1 (3), 169– 175.

Barnard-Brak, L., Sulak, T., Tate, A., & Lechtenberger, D. (2010). Measuring college students’
attitudes toward request accommodations: A national multi-international study.
Assessment for Effective Intervention , 35 (3), 141– 147.

Barnes, M. & Mercer, G. (2010). Exploring disability : A sociological introduction (2nd ed.).
Cambridge, U.K. ; Malden, Mass.: Polity Press.

Barnett, R. (1994). The limit of competence knowledge, higher education and society. Society for
Research in Higher Education and Open University Press. Buckingham, U. K. P. 37.

Baxter Magolda, M. (1999). Creating contexts for learning and self-authorship : constructive-
developmental pedagogy (1st ed.). Vanderbilt University Press.

Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2001). Making their own way: Narratives for transforming higher
education to promote self-development. Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2004). Learning partnerships model: A framework for promoting self-
authorship. In M. B. Baxter Magolda & P. M. King (Eds.), Learning partnerships:
Theory and models of practice to educate for self authorship (pp. 37-62). Sterling, VA:
Stylus.

Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2006). Creating contexts for learning and self-authorship: Constructive-
developmental pedagogy. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.

Baxter Magolda, M.B. (2009) Promoting self-Authorship to promote liberal education. Journal
of College and Character, 10, 3.

Bell, D. (1973). The coming of post-industrial society. New York: Basic Books, Inc.

Bernert, D. J., Ding, K., & Hoban, M. T. (2012). Sexual and substance use behaviors of college
students with disabilities. American Journal of Health Behavior , 36 (4), 459– 471.

Berrey, E. (2015). The enigma of diversity : The language of race and the limits of racial justice.
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Bertaux, D., & Kohli, M. (1984). The life story approach: A continental view. Annual Review of
Sociology, 10, 215-237.

Beilke, J. R., & Yssel, N. (1999). The chilly climate for students with disabilities in higher
education. College Student Journal , 33 (3), 364– 371.

132

Blumberg, L. (2004). The virtues of “ballpark normalcy.” In S. D. Klein & J. D. Kemp (Eds.),
Reflections from a different journey: What adults with disabilities wish all parents knew
(pp. 23– 26). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Bonilla-Silva, E. (2006). Racism without racists: Color-blind racism and the persistence of
racial inequality in the United States (2nd ed.). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield
Publishers.

Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In handbook of theory and research in education pp.
241–58. Westport: Greenwood.

Bourke, A. B., Strehorn, K. C., & Silver, P. (2000). Faculty members' provision of instructional
accommodations to students with LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33(1), 26-32.
doi:10.1177/002221940003300106

Bowe, F. (2000). Universal design in education: Teaching nontraditional students. Westport,
Conn.: Bergin & Garvey.

Bowman, L. (2011). Americans with disabilities act as amended: Principles and practice. New
Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 132, 85-95.

Brabazon, T. (2015). Enabling University: Impairment, (Dis)ability and Social Justice in Higher
Education. New York, NY: Springer.

Braddock, D. & Parish, S. (2001). An institutional history of disability. In G. L. Albrecht K.
Seelman & M. Bury Handbook of disability studies (pp. 11-68). Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE Publications Ltd.

Brault, M. (2012). Americans with disabilities: 2010 household economic studies. Washington
D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau.

Brockelman, K. F., Chadsey, J. G., & Loeb, J. W. (2006). Faculty perceptions of university
students with psychiatric disabilities. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 30(1), 26-30.
doi:10.2975/30.2006.23.30

Brown, J. T. (1994). Effective disability support service programs. In D. Ryan & M. McCarthy
(Eds.), A student affairs guide to the ADA and disability issues (pp. 98– 110).
Washington, DC: National Association of Student Personnel Administrators.

Brown, K., & Broido, E. M. (2015). Engagement of students with disabilities. In S. Quaye & S.
Harper (Eds.), Student engagement in higher education: Theoretical perspectives and
practical approaches for diverse populations (2nd ed., pp. 187– 207). New York, NY:
Routledge.

133

Brown, K., Broido, E., Stapleton, L., Evans, N., & Peña, E. (2016, November). Disability
research: Frameworks for qualitative inquiry. Paper presented at the Association of the
Study of Higher Education Conference, Columbus, OH.

Bruder, M. B., & Mogro-Wilson, C. (2010). Student and faculty awareness and attitudes about
students with disabilities. Review of Disability Studies , 6 (2), 3– 13.

Burgstahler, S. (Ed.) (2011). Special Issue: STEM Education. Journal of Postsecondary
Education and Disability, 24(4), 265-267.

Burgstahler, S. (Ed.). (2015). Universal design in higher education: From principles to
practice (2nd ed.). Boston: Harvard Education Press.

Burgstahler, S. (2014). Universal design in higher education. In M. Vance, N. E. Lipsitz,
& K. Parks (Eds.), Beyond the Americans with Disabilities Act: Inclusive policy
and practice in higher education (pp. 35-48). Washington, DC: NASPA—Student
Affairs Administrators in Higher Education.

Burgstahler, S. & Cory, R. (2008). Moving in from the margins: From accommodation to
universal design. In S. Gabel & S. Danforth (Eds.), Handbook of Disability Studies and
Education (pp. 561-581). New York: Peter Lang.

Burgstahler, S., & Moore, E. (2009). Making student services welcoming and accessible through
accommodations and universal design. Journal of Postsecondary Education and
Disability, 21 (3), 151– 174.

Butler, J. (1999). Gender trouble : Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York:
Routledge.

Cameron, C., & Swain, J. (1999). Unless otherwise stated : discourses of labelling and identity.
In M. Corker, & S. French (Eds.), Disability Discourse (pp. 68-78). Open University
Press. http://www.mheducation.co.uk/9780335202225-emea-disability-discourse-group

Campbell, F. K. (2009). Contours of ableism: The production of disability and ableness . New
York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan.

Carnevale, A. P., Strohl, J. (July 2013). Separate and unequal: How higher education reinforces
the intergenerational reproduction of White racial privilege. Washington, DC:
Georgetown Public Policy Institute, Georgetown University.

Castañeda, R., & Peters, M. L. (2000). Ableism. In M. Adams, W. J. Blumenfled, R. Castañeda,
H. W. Hackman, M. L. Peters, & X. Zúñiga (Eds.), Readings for diversity and social
justice (pp. 319–323). New York: Routledge.

Carlson, S. (2016, May 6). Should everyone go to college? Chronicle of Higher Education , pp.
A23– A25.
134

Carter, P. L., & Welner, K. G. (2013). Closing the opportunity gap: what every american must
do to give every child an even chance. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Charmaz, K. (2019). Experiencing Stigma and Exclusion: The Influence of Neoliberal
Perspectives, Practices, and Policies on Living with Chronic Illness and
Disability. Symbolic Interaction, 43(1), 21–45. https://doi.org/10.1002/symb.432

Chase, S.E. (1996). Personal vulnerability and interpretive authority in narrative research. In: R.
Josselson (ed.), Ethics and process in the narrative study of lives (vol. 4, pp. 45-59).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cheatham, S. Elliott, F. (2013). Family assets, postsecondary education, and students with
disabilities: Building on progress and overcoming challenges. Children and Youth
Services Review, 35(7), 1078-1086.

Chickering, A.W., & Reiser, L. (1993). Education and identity (2nd Ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.

Clandinin, D., & Connelly, F. (2000). Narrative inquiry : Experience and story in qualitative
research. (1st ed., The Jossey-Bass education series). San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey-Bass.

Cohen, J. J., Gabriel, B. A., & Terrell, C. (2002). The case for diversity in the health care
workforce. Health Affairs, 21, 90-102.

Cole, E. V., & Cawthon, S. W. (2015). Self-disclosure decisions of university students with
learning disabilities. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability , 28 (2), 163–
179.
Cole, A. L., & Knowles, J. G. (2001). Lives in context: The art of life history research. Walnut
Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.

Coles, R. (1989). The call of stories: Teaching and the moral imagination. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin.

Connor, D. J., & Baglieri, S. (2009). Tipping the scales: disability studies asks “how much
diversity can you take?”. In S. Steinberg (Ed.) Diversity: A reader (pp. 341-361). New
York: Peter Lang.

Connor, D. (2011). Actively navigating the transition into college: Narratives of students with
learning disabilities. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 1-32.

Connors, S., & Stalker, K. (2007). Children’s experiences of disability: pointers to a social model
of childhood disability. Disability & Society, 22(1), 19–33.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09687590601056162

135

Copley, T. Y. (2011, November 1). What disability justice has to offer social justice . Retrieved
from http://www.grassrootsfundraising.org/2011/11/11– 3-what-disability-justice-has-to-
offersocial-justice-by-theo-yang-copley/

Cory, R. C. (2011). Disability services offices for students with disabilities: A campus resource.
New Directions for Higher Education, 5, 27-36.

Covey, H. (1998). Social perceptions of people with disabilities in history. Springfield, Ill.:
Charles C. Thomas.

Creswell, J.W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage Publications.

Danielson, P. (2004). Disability does not equal liability. In S. D. Klein & J. D. Kemp (Eds.),
Reflections from a different journey: What adults with disabilities wish all parents knew
(pp. 8– 12). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Darling, R. (2013). Disability and identity: Negotiating self in a changing society. Boulder, CO:
Lynne Rienner Publishers.

De Chesnay, M. (Ed.) (2014). Nursing research using data analysis. New York, NY: Springer.

Demos (2015). The racial wealth gap: Why policy matters. New York: Demos. Retrieved from
http://www.demos.org/publication/racial-wealth-gap-why-policy-matters.

Denhart, H. (2008). Deconstructing barriers: Perceptions of students labeled with learning
disabilities in higher education. Journal of Learning Disabilities , 41 (6), 483–497.

Denzin, N. K. (1989). Interpretive biography. Sage University Paper Series on Qualitative
Research Methods, Vol. 17. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.

Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (2000). Handbook of qualitative research. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
Calif.: Sage Publications.

Depoy, E., & Gilson, D. (2014). Theoretical Approaches to Disability Content in Social Work
Education. Journal of Social Work Education, 38(1), 153–165.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2002.10779088

DeSilver, D. (2014). Supreme Court says states can ban affirmative action; 8 already have.
Washington DC: Pew Research Center.

136

Dowrick, P. W., Anderson, J., Heyer, K., & Acosta, J. (2005). Postsecondary education across
the USA: Experiences of adults with disabilities. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation ,
22 , 41–47.

Dunn, D. S., & Burcaw, S. (2013). Disability identity: Exploring narrative accounts of disability.
Rehabilitation Psychology, 58 (2), 148– 157.

Engell, J., & Dangerfield, A. (2005). Saving higher education in the age of money.
Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.

Erevelles, N., & Minear, A. (2010). Unspeakable offenses: Untangling race and disability in
discourses of intersectionality. Journal of Literary & Cultural Disability Studies , 4 (2),
127– 146.

Erickson, W., Lee, C., & von Schrader, S. (2014). 2012 disability status report: United States.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Yang Tan Institute. Retrieved from
http://www.disabilitystatistics.org/reports/2012/English/HTML/report2012.cfm?fips=200
0000&html_year=2012&subButton=Get+HTML#introduction.

Evans, H. (2016). Uncovering: making disability identity legible. Disability Studies
Quarterly, 37(1), Vol.37(1).

Evans, N. (2008). Theoretical foundations for universal instructional design. In J. Higbee & E.
Goff (Eds.), Pedagogy and student services for institutional transformation:
Implementing universal design in higher education (pp. 11-23). Minneapolis: University
of Minnesota, Center for Research on Developmental Education and Urban Literacy.

Evans, N.J., Assadi, J.L., & Herriott, T.K. (2005). Encouraging the development of disability
allies. In R.D. Reason, E.M. Broido, T.L. Davis, & N.J. Evans (eds.), Developing social
justice allies (67-78). New Directions for Student Services, 110. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.

Evans, N. J., Broido, E. M., Brown, K. R., Wilke, A. K., & Herriott, T. K. (2017). Disability in
higher education : A social justice approach.

Evans, N. J., & Herriott, T. K. (2009). Philosophical and theoretical approaches to disability. In
J. L. Higbee, & A. A. Mitchell (Eds.), Making good on the promise: Student affairs
professionals with disabilities (pp. 27-40). Washington, DC: American College Personnel
Association & University Press of America.

Evans, N. J., Forney, D. S., Guido, F. M., Patton, L. D., & Renn, K. A. (2016). Student
development in college: Theory, research, and practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Fairweather, J., & Shaver, D. (1990). A Troubled Future?: Participation in Postsecondary
Education by Youths with Disabilities. The Journal of Higher Education, 61(3), 332-348.

137

Fine, M. and Asch, A. (1988), Disability Beyond Stigma: Social Interaction, Discrimination, and
Activism. Journal of Social Issues, 44: 3-21.

Foner E (2005) Forever free: the story of emancipation and reconstruction. New York: Alfred A
Knopf.

Freire, P. (1970). The pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum Publishing.

Gallardo, M.E. & Gibson, J. (2005). Culturally Diverse Individuals with Disabilities: Meeting
Therapeutic Needs. Framingham, MA: Microtraining and Multicultural Development.

Garner, DiAnne B. (2008). Postsecondary Education Success: Stories of Three Students with
Learning Disabilities. TEACHING Exceptional Children Plus, 4(4), TEACHING
Exceptional Children Plus, 2008, Vol.4(4).

Geiger, R. (1993). Research and the relevant knowledge: American research universities since
World War I. New York: Oxford University Press.

Geiger, R. (2000). Markets and history: Selective admissions and American higher education
since 1950. History of Higher Education Manual, 20, 93-108.

Geiger, R. (2004). Knowledge and money: Research universities and the paradox of the
marketplace. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Geiger, R. (2004). Research & relevant knowledge : American research universities since World
War II / Roger L. Geiger, with a new introduction by the author. New Brunswick, N.J.:
Transaction.

Gibson, J. (2006). Disability and clinical competency: An introduction. The California
Psychologist.39. 6-10.

Gillies, J., & Dupuis, S. L. (2013). A framework for creating a campus culture of inclusion: A
participatory action research approach. Annals of Leisure Research , 16 (3), 193– 211.

Gregg, N. (2009). Adolescents and adults with learning disabilities and ADHD. New York:
Guilford Press.

Griffin, P., & McClintock, M. (1997). History of ableism in Europe and the United States--A
selected timeline. In M. Adams, L. A. Bell, & P. Griffin (Eds.), Teaching for diversity
and social justice (pp. 219-225). New York: Routledge.

Groce, N. (2005). Immigrants, disability, and rehabilitation. In J. H. Stone (Ed.), Culture and
disability: Providing culturally competent services (pp. 1– 14). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.

138

Gruttadaro, D., & Crudo, D. (2012). College students speak: A survey report on mental health .
Retrieved from http://www.nami.org/getattachment/About-NAMI/Publications-
Reports/SurveyReports/College-Students-Speak_A-Survey-Report-on-Mental-Health-
NAMI-2012.pdf Guckenberger v. Boston University, 974 F. Supp. 106 (D. Mass. Aug.
15, 1997).

Guzman, A., & Balcazar, F. E. (2010). Disability services’ standards and the worldviews guiding
their implementation. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability , 23 (1), 48–
62.

Hadley, W. M. (2011). College students with disabilities: a student development
perspective. New Directions for Higher Education, (154), 77-81.

Hahn, H. (1988). The politics of physical differences: Disability and discrimination. Journal of
Social Issues, 44(1), 39-47.

Hall, L. M., and Belch, H. A (2000). Setting the context: reconsidering the principles of full
participation and meaningful access for students with disabilities. In H. A. Belch (ed.),
Serving students with disabilities. New Directions for Student Services, no. 91. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hanson, C. (2014). In search of self : Exploring student identity development / Chad Hanson,
editor. J-B HE Single Issue Higher Education.

Harro, B. (2013). The Cycle of Socialization. In M. Adams, W. J. Blumenfeld, C. Castaneda, H.
W. Hackman, M. L. Peters, & X. Zuniga (Eds.), Readings for diversity and social justice
(pp. 45-52). New York: Routledge.

Hayashi, R., & May, G. E. (2011). The effect of exposure to a professor with a visible disability
on students’ attitudes toward disabilities. Journal of Social Work in Disability &
Rehabilitation , 10 (1), 36–48. doi:10.1080/1536710X.2011.546300

Hedrick, B., Dizén, M., Collins, K., Evans, J., & Grayson, T. (2010). Perceptions of college
students with and without disabilities and effects of STEM and non-STEM enrollment on
student engagement and institutional involvement. Journal of Postsecondary Education
and Disability , 23 (2), 129–136.

Hehir, T. (2005). New directions in special education. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Education
Press.

Heiman, T., & Berger, O. (2008). Parents of children with Asperger syndrome or with learning
disabilities: Family environment and social support. Research in Developmental
Disabilities , 29 (4), 289–300.

139

Higbee, J. L. & Mitchell, A. A. (2009). Making good on the promise: Student affairs
professionals with disabilities (pp. 27-40). Washington, DC: American College Personnel
Association & University Press of America.

Higgins, R. (2002). Stages of Acceptance of a Learning Disability: The Impact of
Labeling. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25(1), 3–18. https://doi.org/10.2307/1511187

Higher Education Research Institute. (2011). College students with “hidden” disabilities: The
Freshman Survey Fall 2010 . Los Angeles, CA: University of California at Los Angeles.
Retrieved from
http://www.heri.ucla.edu/PDFs/pubs/briefs/HERI_ResearchBrief_Disabilities_2011_Apri
l_ 25v2.pdf

Hitchings, W. E., Retish, P., & Horvath, M. (2005). Academic preparation of adolescents with
disabilities for postsecondary education. Career Development for Exceptional
Individuals, 28(1), 26-35. doi: 10.1177/08857288050280010501

Hochschild, J. (1995). Facing up to the American dream: Race, class, and the soul of the nation.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Huberman, A., & Miles, M. (1984). Innovation up close : How school improvement
works. Environment, development, and public policy. New York: Plenum Press.

Huger, M. S. (2011). Fostering a disability-friendly institutional climate. In M. Huger (Ed.),
Fostering the increased integration of students with disabilities (New Directions for
Student Services, no. 134, pp. 3–11). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Hughes, B. (2009). Wounded/monstrous/abject: a critique of the disabled body in the
sociological imaginary, Disability & Society, 24:4, 399-410.

Hutcheon, E. J., & Wolbring, G. (2012). Voices of “disabled” post secondary students:
Examining higher education “disability” policy using an ableism lens. Journal of
Diversity in Higher Education , 5 (1), 39–49.

Iverson, S. (2007). Camouflaging power and privilege: A critical race analysis of university
diversity policies. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(5).

Jacoby, B. (1993). Service delivery for a changing student constituency. In M.J. Barr &
Associates, The handbook of student affairs administration (pp. 468-480). San Francisco:
Jossey Bass.

Janiga, S. J., & Costenbader, V. (2002). The transition from high school to postsecondary
education for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35(5),
462-468, 479.

140

Jarrow, J. (1993). Beyond ramps: New ways of viewing access. New Directions for Student
Services, 64, 5-16.

Jensen, J. M., McCrary, N., Krampe, K., & Cooper, J. (2004). Trying to do the right thing:
Faculty attitudes toward accommodating students with learning disabilities. Journal of
Postsecondary Education and Disability, 17(2), 81-89.

Johnson, A. (2013). The social construction of difference. In M. Adams, W. Blumenfeld, C.
Castaneda, H. Hackman, M. Peters, & X. Zuniga (Eds.), Reading for diversity and social
justice (3
rd
ed., pp.15-21). New York: Routledge.

Johnstone, C. J. (2004). Disability identity: Personal constructions and formalized supports.
Disability Studies Quarterly , 24 (4). Retrieved from http://dsq-
sds.org/article/view/880/1055

Jones, S. R. (1996). Toward inclusive theory: Disability as a social construction. NASPA
Journal, 33, 347-354.

Jones, S. R., & McEwen, M. K. (2000). A conceptual model of multiple dimensions of identity.
Journal of college student development, 41(4), 405-414

Josselson, R. (1996). Revising herself: The story of women's identity from college to midlife.
Oxford University Press.

Jung, A. W. (2011). Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) and barriers for parents from
culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. Multicultural Education, 21-25.

Kalivoda, K. S. (2009). Disability realities: community, culture, and connection to college
campuses. In J. L. Higbee and A. A. Mitchell (eds.), Making Good on the Promise:
Student Affairs Professionals with Disabilities. Lanham, Md.: University Press of
America.

Kaplan, K. (2005). The definition of disability. The Center for an Accessible Society. Retrieved
from http://www.accessiblesociety.org/topics/demographics-identity/dkaplanpaper.htm.

Karabel, J. (2005). The chosen: The hidden history of admission and exclusion at Harvard, Yale,
and Princeton. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Kegan, R. (1982). The evolving self: Problem and process in human development. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.

Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.

Kezar, A. (2011). Recognizing and serving low-income students in higher education: An
examination of institutional policies, practices, and culture. New York, NY: Routledge.
141

Kirk, S. (2010). How children and young people construct and negotiate living with medical
technology. Social Science & Medicine (1982), 71(10), 1796–1803.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.07.044

Kluegel, J. & Bobo, L. (1993). Opposition to Race-Targeting: Self-Interest, Stratification
Ideology, or Racial Attitudes? American Sociological Review, 58(4), 443-464.

Kluegel, J., & Smith, E.R. (1986). Beliefs about inequality: Americans' views of what is and
what ought to be. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Knight, Peter T. (2002). Learning from schools. (Author abstract). Higher Education, 44(2), 283-
298.

Knowles, J. G. (1993). Life-history accounts as mirrors: A practical avenue for the
conceptualization of reflection in teacher education. In J. Calderhead & P. Gates (Eds.),
Conceptualizing reflection in teacher development (pp. 70-98). London: Falmer Press.

Kraus, A. (2008). The sociopolitical construction of identity: A multidimensional model of
disability (Doctoral dissertation). University of Arizona, Tucson. Retrieved from
http://arizona.open
repository.com/arizona/bitstream/10150/193722/1/azu_etd_2625_sip1_m.pdf

Krisch, J. (2014). When racism was a science: “haunted files: the eugenics record office”
recreates a dark time in a laboratory’s past. The New York Times. Retrieved from
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/14/science/haunted-files-the-eugenics-record-office-
recreates-a-dark-time-in-a-laboratorys-past.html.

Kurth, N., & Mellard, D. (2006). Student perceptions of the accommodation process in
postsecondary education. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 19 (1), 71–
84.

Lareau, A., & Weininger, E. (2003). Cultural capital in educational research:
A critical assessment. Theory and Society, 32(5), 567-606.

Lather, P. (2007). Getting lost: Feminist efforts toward a double(d). Albany: State University of
New York Press.

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

Lindburg, J., Myers, K., & Nied, D. (2013). Allies for inclusion: Disability and equity in higher
education. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Periodicals.

Lindgren, K. (2004). Bodies in trouble: Identity, embodiment, and disability. In B. G. Smith
142

& B. Hutchinson (Eds.), Engendering disability (pp. 145–165). New Brunswick, NJ:
Rutgers University Press.

Linton, S. (1998). Claiming disability: Knowledge and identity. New York, NY: University
Press.

Liu, Amy. (2011). Unraveling the Myth of Meritocracy within the Context of US Higher
Education. Higher Education: The International Journal of Higher Education and
Educational Planning, 62(4), 383-397.

Longmore, P. K. (2003). Why I burned my book and other essays on disability. Philadelphia, PA:
Temple University Press.

Mackelprang, R.W. & Salsgiver, R.O. (1999). Disability: A Diversity Model Approach in
Human Service Practice. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks Cole.

Madaus, J. W. (2009). Let’s be reasonable: Accommodations at the college level. In S. F. Shaw,
J. W. Madaus, & L. L. Dukes (Eds.), Preparing students with disabilities for college
success: A practical guide to transition planning (pp. 10–35). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

Madriaga, M. (2007). Enduring disablism: Students with dyslexia and their pathways into UK
higher education and beyond. Disability & Society, 22 (4), 399–412.

Major, B., & O'Brien, L. T. (2005). The social psychology of stigma. Annual Review of
Psychology, 56(1), 393-421. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070137

Mamiseishvili, K., & Koch, L. C. (2011). First-to-second-year persistence of students with
disabilities in postsecondary institutions in the United States. Rehabilitation Counseling
Bulletin , 54 (2), 93–105.

Markoulakis, R., & Kirsh, B. (2013). Difficulties for university students with mental health
problems: A critical interpretive synthesis. Review of Higher Education , 37 (1), 77–100.

Marks, D. (1999). Disability: Controversial debates and psychosocial perspectives. London:
Routledge.

McCarthy, M. (2011). Prescribing contraception to women with intellectual disabilities: General
Practitioners’ attitudes and practices. Sexuality and Disability 29: 339–349.

McIntosh, P. (2012). Reflections and future directions for privilege studies. Journal of Social
Issues, 68(1), 194-206.

McLean, P., Heagney, M., & Gardner, K. (2003). Going global: The implications for students
with a disability. Higher Education Research & Development, 22(2) 217-228.

143

McLean, M. (2005). Emancipatory understandings for allies: recognizing ableism. In P. O’Brien
and M. Sullivan (Eds.), Allies in Emancipation: Shifting from Providing Service to
Benefit of Support. Melbourne, Australia: Thomson Dunmore Press.

McNamee, S. J., & Miller, R. K. (2014). The meritocracy myth. Lanham, Md: Rowman &
Littlefield.

Merriam, S.B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Meyer, J. (1987). Self and life course: Institutionalization and its effects. In G. M. Thomas, J. W.
Meyer, F. O. Ramirez, & J. Boli (Eds.), Institutional structure: Constituting state,
society, and the individual (pp. 242-260). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Michalko, R. (2002). The difference that disability makes. Philadelphia, Pa: Temple University
Press.
Middleton, L. (1999). Disabled children : challenging social exclusion . Blackwell Science.

Milsom, A., Hartley, M. T. (2005). Assisting college students with learning disabilities
transitioning to college: What school counselors should know. Professional School
Counseling 8, 436–441.

Minow, M. (1990). Making all the difference : Inclusion, exclusion, and American law. Ithaca:
Cornell University Press.

Moore, R. (2004). Education and society: Issues and explanations in the sociology of education.
Cambridge, England: Polity Press.

Moriarty, M. (2007). Inclusive pedagogy: Teaching methodologies to reach diverse learners in
science instruction. Equity & Excellence in Education , 40 (3), 252–265.

Murray, C., Lombardi, A., Wren, C. T., & Keys, C. (2009). Associations between prior disability
focused training and disability-related attitudes and perceptions among university faculty.
Learning Disability Quarterly , 32 , 87–102.

Myers, B., & Bastian, J. (2010). Understanding communication preferences of college students
with visual disabilities. Journal of College Student Development, 51(3), 265–278.
https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.0.0129

National Center for Education Statistics. (2013). Students with disabilities in postsecondary
education: A profile in preparation, participation, and outcomes. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Education.

Nasir, N.S. and Cooks, J. (2009), Becoming a Hurdler: How Learning Settings Afford Identities.
Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 40: 41-61. https://doi-
org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1111/j.1548-1492.2009.01027.x
144

Newman, L., Wagner, M., Knokey, A.-M., Marder, C., Nagle, K., Shaver, D., …Schwarting, M.
(2011). The post–high school outcomes of youth with disabilities up to 8 years after high
school. A report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS-2). (NCSER
2011–3005). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Retrieved from
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED524044.pdf

Nielsen, K. (2012). A disability history of the United States. Boston: Beacon Press.

Oesterreich & Knight. (2010). Facilitating transitions to college for students from culturally and
linguistically diverse backgrounds. In M. Adams, W. J. Blumenfeld, C. Castaneda, H.W.
Hackman, M.L. Peters, and X Zuniga (Eds.) Readings for Diversity and Social Justice
(2nd Ed.) London: Routledge PressTeachers College Record,113(6), 1275-1292

Olkin, R. (2012). Disability: A primer for therapists. In E. M. Altmaier & J.-I. C. Hansen (Eds.),
The Oxford handbook of counseling psychology (pp. 460– 479). New York, NY: Oxford
University Press. Retrieved from
http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/
9780195342314.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195342314

Olney, M. & Brockelman, K. (2003). Out of the disability closet: Strategic use of perception
management by select university students with disabilities. Disability and Society, 18(1),
35–50.

Orfield, G., & Lee, C. (2005). Why segregation matters: Poverty and educational inequality. The
Civil Rights Project. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

Ostiguy, B.J., Peters, M.L., & Shlasko, D. (2016). Ableism. In M. Adams & L.A. Bell (Eds.),
Teaching for diversity and social justice (3
rd
ed., pp.299-337). New York, NY:
Routledge.

Ouellett, M. L. (2004). Faculty development and universal instructional design. Equity &
Excellence in Education, 37 (2), 135– 144.

Palombi, B.J. (2000). Recruitment and admission of students with disabilities. In Belch, A.
(Eds.), Serving students with disabilities: New direction for student services. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass.

Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Patton, M.Q. (2014). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Patton, L. D., Renn, K. A., Guido-DiBrito, F., & Quaye, S. J. (2016). Student development in
college: Theory, research, and practice. San Francisco, CA : Jossey-Bass.
145

Paul, S. (2000). Students with disabilities in higher education: A review of the literature. College
Student Journal, 34(2), 200-210.

Pelka, F. (2012). What we have done: An oral history of the disability rights movement. Amherst:
University of Massachusetts Press.

Peña, E. V. (2014). Marginalization of published scholarship on students with disabilities in
higher education journals. Journal of College Student Development, 55 , 30– 40.

Pliner , S. M. and Johnson, J.R. (2004). Universal Instructional Design and Critical
(Communication) Pedagogy: Strategies for Voice, Inclusion, and Social Justice/Change.
Equity & Excellence in Education, 37, (2), 107,109, 11.

Plummer, K. (2001). Documents of life: an invitation to a critical humanism. London: Sage
Publications.

Putnam, M. (2005). Conceptualizing disability: Developing a framework for political disability
identity. Journal of Disability Policy Studies , 16 (3), 188– 198.

Reason, E., & Evans, N. (2007). The complicated realities of whiteness: From color blind to
racially cognizant. New Directions for Student Services, 2007(120), 67–75.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ss.258

Reid, D. K., & Knight, M. G. (2006). Disability justifies exclusion of minority students: A
critical history grounded in disability studies. Educational Researcher , 35 (6), 18– 23.

Reissman, C. K. (2008). Narrative methods for the human sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Rocco, T. (2013). Editorial - Turning a corner: The future of New Directions in Adult Education
and Human Resource Development. New Horizons in Adult Education & Human
Resource Development, 25(1), 1-2.

Rocco, T. S., Delgado, A. (2011). Shifting lenses: A critical examination of disability in adult
education. New Directions for Adult & Continuing Education, 132, 1-12.

Rudolph, F., & Thelin, J. R. (1990). The American college and university: A history. Athens:
University of Georgia Press.

Rumann, C. B., & Hamrick, F. A. (2009). Supporting student veterans. In R. Ackerman & D.
DiRamio (Eds.), Creating a veteran-friendly campus: Strategies for transition success
(New Directions for Student Services, no. 126, pp. 25–34). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.

146

Salzberg, C. L., Peterson, L., Debrand, C. C., Blair, R. J., Carsey, A. C., & Johnson, A. S.
(2002). Opinions of disability service directors on faculty training: The need, content,
issues, formats, media, and activities. Journal of Postsecondary Education and
Disability, 15, 101-114.

Sanders, K. Y. (2006). Overprotection and lowered expectations of persons with disabilities: The
unforeseen consequences. Work , 27 (2), 181–188.

Sanford, C., Newman, L., Wagner, M., Cameto, R., Knokey, A., & Shaver, D. (2011). The post-
high school outcomes of young adults with disabilities up to 6 years after high school.
Key findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2) (NCSER 2011–
3004). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Retrieved from
http://ies.ed.gov/ncser/pubs/20113004/pdf/20113004.pdf

Samuels, E. J. (2003). My body, my closet: Invisible disability and the limits of coming-out
discourse. GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies , 9 (1), 233–255.

Scheer, J. (1994). Culture and disability. In E. Trickett (Ed) Human diversity: Perspectives on
people in context. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schlossberg, N. (1989). Marginality and Mattering: Key issues in building community. In D.C.
Roberts (Ed.), Designing campus activities to foster a sense of community (pp. 5-15).
New Directions for Student Services, 48. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Schlossberg, N. K., Lynch, A. Q., & Chickering, A.W. (1989). Improving higher education
environments for adults: Responsive programs and services from entry to departure. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Schlossberg, N. K., Waters, E. B., & Goodman, J. (1995). Counseling adults in transition (2nd
ed.). New York, NY: Springer.

Schutz, P. (2002). Transition from Secondary to Postsecondary Education for Students with
Disabilities: An Exploration of the Phenomenon. Journal of College Reading and
Learning,33(1), 46-61.

Schwandt, T.A. (2001). Dictionary of qualitative inquiry (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Sears, D.O., Hetts, J.J., Sidanius, J., & Bobo, L. ( 2000). Race and American politics. In D. O.
Sears, J. Sidanius , & L. Bobo (Eds.), Racialized politics: The debate about racism in
America (pp. 1-43). Chicago : University of Chicago Press.

Seidman, A. (Eds.). (2005). College student retention: Formula for student success. Westport,
CT: Praeger.

Shakespeare, T. (1996). Disability, identity, and difference. In C. Barnes & G. Mercer (Eds.),
Exploring the divide. Leeds, England: Disability Press.
147

Shakespeare, T. (2006). Disability rights and wrongs . New York, NY: Routledge.

Shakespeare, T. (2006). The social model of disability. In L.J. Davis (Ed.), The disability studies
reader (pp. 214-221). New York: Routledge.

Sheridan, M. (2001). Inner Lives of Deaf Children: Interviews and Analysis. In Inner Lives of
Deaf Children. Gallaudet University Press.

Sherry, M. (2007). (Post)colonizing disability. Wagadu: Journal of Transnational Women’s and
Gender Studies , 4 , 10–22.

Shifrer, D. (2013). Stigma of a label: Educational expectations for high school students labeled
with learning disabilities. Journal of Health and Social Behavior , 54 (4), 462–480.

Siebers, T. (2008). Disability theory. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Siebers, T. (2015). Disability trouble. In N. J. Hirschmann & B. Linker (Eds.). Civil disabilities:
Citizenship, membership, and belonging (pp. 223– 235). Philadelphia, PA: University of
Pennsylvania.

Simon, J. A. (2011). Legal issues in serving students with disabilities in postsecondary
education. New Directions for Student Services, 134, 95-107.

Skinner, M. E. (2007). Faculty willingness to provide accommodations and course alternatives to
postsecondary students with learning disabilities. International Journal of Special
Education , 22 (2), 32– 45.

Skinner, D., & Weisner, T. (2007). Sociocultural studies of families of children with intellectual
disabilities. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 13,
302-312.

Smith, D. L. (2008). Disability, gender and intimate partner violence: Relationships from the
behavioral risk factor surveillance system. Sexuality and Disability , 26 (1), 15– 28.

Sniatecki, J. L., Perry, H. B., & Snell, L. H. (2015). Faculty attitudes and knowledge regarding
college students with disabilities. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability , 28
(3), 259–275.

Stanton-Salazar, R. (1997). A social capital framework for understanding the socialization of
racial minority children and youths. Harvard Educational Review, 67(1), 1-40.

Stanton-Salazar, R. (2001). Manufacturing hope and despair: The school support
networks of U.S.-Mexican youth. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

148

Steele, C. M. (2010). Whistling Vivaldi: And other clues how stereotypes affect us. New York:
Norton & Company Inc.

Stop Ableism. (n.d.). What Is Ableism? Retrieved October 10, 2020, from
http://www.stopableism.org/p/what-is-ableism.html

Strange, C. C., & Banning, J. (2000). Educating by design: Creating campus environments that
work. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Sue, D. (2010). Microaggressions in everyday life: race, gender, and sexual
orientation. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley.

Tajfel, H. (1972). Social categorization. English manuscript of “La categorisation sociale.” In S.
Moscovici (Ed.), Introduction a la Psychologie Sociale (vol. 1, pp. 272–302). Paris,
France: Larousse.

Tate, W.F. IV (1997). Critical race theory and education: History, theory, and implications.
Review of Research in Education 22, 195-247.

Titchkosky, T. (2007). Reading and writing disability differently: The textured life of
embodiment . Toronto, Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto Press.

Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.).
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Tripoli, L., Mellard, D. F., & Kurth, N. K. (2004). The individual accommodations model
(LAM): Accommodating students with disabilities in postsecondary settings. Lawrence:
University of Kansas, Center for Research on Learning.

Troiano, P. (2003). College students and learning disability: Elements of self-style. Journal of
College Student Development, 44, 404–419.

Underhile, R., & Cowles, J. R. (1998). Gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender students with
disabilities: Implications for faculty and staff. In R. L. Sanlow (Ed.), Working with
lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender college students: A handbook for faculty and
administrators (pp. 171– 177). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Vaccaro, A., Daly-Cano, M., & Newman, B. (2015). A sense of belonging among college
students with disabilities: An emergent theoretical model. Journal of College Student
Development , 56 (7), 670– 686.

Vance, M. L., Lipsitz, N.E. & Parks, K. A. (Eds.). (2014). Beyond the Americans with
disabilities act: Inclusive policy and practice for higher education. Washington D.C.:
NASPA.

149

Wagner, M., Newman, L., Cameto, R., Garza, N., Levine, P. (2005). After high school: A first
look at the postschool experiences of youth with disabilities. A report from the National
Longitudinal Transition Study–2 (NLTS2). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

Watkins, N., & Sue, Derald Wing. (2012). Disarming Microaggressions: How Black College
Students Self-regulate Racial Stressors Within Predominately White
Institutions, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.

Webster, D. (2004). Giving voice to students with disabilities who have successfully transitioned
to college. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 27(2), 151-175.

Wendell, S. (1996). The rejected body: Feminist philosophical reflections on disability. New
York: Routledge.

Widick, C., Parker, C. A., & Knefelkamp, L. (1978). Erik erikson and psychosocial
development. New Directions for Student Services, 1978(4), 1-17.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/ss.37119780403

Wolanin, T.R. and Steele, P.E. (2004). Higher education opportunities for students with
disabilities: A primer for policymakers. Washington, D.C.: The Institute for Higher
Education Policy.

Wolbring, G. (2012) Citizenship education through an ability expectation and ableism lens: the
challenge of science and technology and disabled people. Educ. Sci. 2012, 2(3), 150-164.

Wolf, L. E., & Brown, J. T. (2014). Fostering success for students with hidden disabilities. In M.
L. Vance, N. E. Lipsitz, & K. Parks (Eds.), Beyond the Americans with Disabilities Act:
Inclusive policy and practice for higher education (pp. 111– 126). Washington, DC:
NASPA-Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education.

Wong, T. (2008). Purposive and snowball sampling in the study of ethnic and mainstream
community organizations. Retrieved from
http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p238387_index.html.

World Health Organization. (2018). Disability and health (Fact Sheet No. 352). Retrieved from
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs352/en/.

Worthington, N. (2008). Color-Blind Racial Attitudes, Social Dominance Orientation, Racial-
Ethnic Group Membership and College Students’ Perceptions of Campus
Climate. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 1(1), 8–19.
https://doi.org/10.1037/1938-8926.1.1.8

Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital?: A critical race theory discussion of
community cultural wealth. Race Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 69-91.

150

APPENDIX A

STUDY PARTICIPATION REQUEST

Dear students,

My name is Danny Hernandez, and I am a doctoral student in the Rossier School of Education. I
am conducting a research study as part of my dissertation, focusing on students with disabilities
in higher education and their identity development and meaning making process. A staff member
has identified you as someone who might be ideal for the study. Participation would require one
interview of up to 1.5 hours, with the possibility of a 1-hour follow-up interview.
Participation in this study is entirely voluntary. Your identity as a participant will remain
confidential at all times during and after the study and all interviews will take place in a
private office of your choosing. Your relationship with your university will not be affected
whether or not you participate in the study.

If you have questions or would like to participate, please contact me at drhernan@usc.edu or at
213-740-2017.

Thank you for your consideration,

Danny Hernandez, Principle Investigator
drhernan@usc.edu
University of Southern California

Date of Preparation: 10/03/2019
UPIRB# UP-19-00537

151

APPENDIX B

INFORMATION SHEET FOR SUBJECTS

Informed Consent

University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education

INFORMATION SHEET FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

STUDENTS WITH DISABILTIES AND IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT: HIGHER EDUCATION,
ABLEISM, MERITOCRACY, AND MEANING MAKING
UPIRB# UP-19-00537

You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Danny Hernandez at the University
of Southern California, under the supervision of Alan Green for the purposes of a dissertation.

You are invited to participate because you are a student who has been identified as a potential subject by a
student, staff member, or faculty member and you are aged 18 or older. Your participation is voluntary.
You should read the information below, and ask questions about anything you do not understand before
deciding whether to participate. Please take as much time as you need to read the consent form. You may
also decide to discuss participation with your family or friends. You will be given a copy of this form.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

The major purpose of this study will be to examine how students with disabilities make meaning of their
identity and how this can, in turn, affect institutions of higher education. Specifically, this study focuses
on the lived experiences of people with disabilities in higher education in order to cultivate critical
consciousness, identify systemic and personal barriers to access, and help practitioners engage in praxis-
oriented work to support students.

STUDY PROCEDURES
If you volunteer to participate in this study, you will be asked to participate in one interview session of
approximately 1.5 hours, with the possibility of a follow-up interview of 1 hour. For the purposes of
thorough data collection, notes will be taken during the interview, as well as audio recorded using a
digital recorder. You will be assigned a false name (pseudonym) that will be used during the interviews,
so as to protect your confidentiality and privacy. You will be interviewed in a private office of your
choosing either your office or mine. If you do not want to be audio-taped, you cannot participate in the
study.

POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
There are no anticipated risks associated with this study. You do not need to answer any question you do
not want to.

POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO PARTICIPANTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY

There are no direct benefits to you as the participant. However, as there is minimal research known about
the meaning making process and identity development of students with disabilities, this study seeks to fill
in that knowledge gap. Understanding the experiences of students with disabilities can help shape
152

institutions as more equitable places and can raise awareness amongst educational researchers and
practitioners in their work of supporting and ensuring access for students with disabilities.

CONFIDENTIALITY
Any identifiable information obtained in connection with this study will remain confidential and
will be disclosed only with your permission or as required by law.

Only the study personnel will have access to the data associated with this study. The audio data may be
transcribed by a transcriptionist who has signed a confidentiality agreement. The audio data will be stored
in a password protected computer and the interview notes will be stored in a locked filing cabinet. Your
identity will remain confidential. Your coded information may be used for future research and writing. If
the data is used in future research studies, your permission will not be obtained, since all identifiers will
be removed. Identifiable data will destroyed three years after the study has been completed; the remaining
data will be securely stored for a maximum of five years and then destroyed. When the results of the
research are published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable information will be used.

PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
Your participation is voluntary. Your refusal to participate will involve no penalty or loss of benefits to
which you are otherwise entitled. You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue
participation without penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies because of your
participation in this research study.

ALTERNATIVES TO PARTICIPATION

Your alternative is to not participate in this study; your relationship with your university will not be
affected whether or not you participate.

INVESTIGATOR’S CONTACT INFORMATION

If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact Danny Hernandez at
213-740-2017, or drhernan@usc.edu.

RIGHTS OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT – IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have questions, concerns, or complaints about your rights as a research participant you may contact
the IRB directly at the information provided below. If you have questions about the research and are
unable to contact the research team, or if you want to talk to someone independent of the research team,
please contact the University Park IRB (UPIRB), Office of the Vice Provost for Research Advancement,
Stonier Hall, Room 224a, Los Angeles, CA 90089-1146, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu.

153

APPENDIX C

INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

A. Introduce myself.

B. As you know, I am engaged in a doctoral study about students with disabilities in higher
education and their experiences, identity development, and meaning making process. Today’s
interview should last approximately 1.5 hours. I may need to interview you again after I have
reviewed the information you share today. If that is necessary, we can set up that appointment
after our conversation today.

C. I would like to audio record our conversation in order to allow me to listen more carefully to
what you say. Do I have your permission to use the audio recorder? All of your information will
remain confidential and we will use a pseudonym for the interviews. Select pseudonym.

D. Present information form. Would you mind taking a minute to read through the
information form?

Life Histories Approach

Part 1 – Awareness and the Concept of Disability Identity
A. What was your first experience like knowing you had a disability? How did you learn
about it?
B. What was school and family life like for you after being aware of your disability?
C. Do you currently identify as someone with a disability? If so, do you remember when
you first saw this as part of your identity?

Part 2 – Experiences with a Disability
A. Do you have any significant memories about your experience with a disability that
have most resonated with you?
B. Did you face any challenges navigating your disability in your personal life or
educational career on your way to college?
C. What has been your experience having a disability at the college and have you faced
any challenges here?
D. Did these challenges tell you anything about your environment, this school, our
culture/society? Or yourself?
E. Did you feel like you have or will overcome these challenges?

Part 3 –Making Meaning of Disability as Identity, Ableism, and Meritocracy
A. What identities do you hold as most important to you? What does your identity as
someone with a disability mean to you? Have others or your environment played a
role on how you think about these identities?
B. Are you familiar with the term “Ableism”? If so, where did you come to know about
this term?
C. Do you believe that ableism exists in our society? If so, in what ways?
154

D. Have you experienced anything like this in your personal life, perhaps from friends,
family, work, or at the College?
E. Looking forward, do you think your disability will play a role in your college,
graduate school, or career experience- positive, negative, both? In what ways?

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Utilization of accommodations for learning or other non-apparent disabilities: the influence of ableism on student behavior

PDF

Ethnic identity development, ethnic student organizations, campus racial climate, cultural integrity, and sense of belonging for Filipino American undergraduate students at a selective predominan...

PDF

Asian American college student well-being: racial identity consciousness as model minorities at an elite university

PDF

Representation matters: the ways in which African American faculty support African American students in higher education

PDF

Students with disabilities in higher education: examining factors of mental health, psychological well-being, and resiliency

PDF

Minimizing academic ableism and maximizing course accessibility: a social justice pedagogical approach to faculty development

PDF

The role of family and ethnic identity in the college choice process for first-generation Latinas

PDF

Walking away from the game: a phenomenological study on student-athletes career transition

PDF

Concurrent enrollment in English support classes for community college students

PDF

Enumerating Black identity in higher education

PDF

College access: a qualitative look at access programs for African American males in higher education

PDF

Staff members’ transfer of social capital to first-generation, low-income Latino/a students of Mexican descent

PDF

The lived experiences of Hispanic students with disabilities transitioning to higher education

PDF

The impact of college success program on first generation college students in their preparation for college

PDF

The lived experience of first-generation latino students in remedial education and navigating the transfer pathway

PDF

Second-generation Korean-American students' mental health experiences in high school

PDF

Evaluating technical support provided in online education for students with disabilities

PDF

Out of the darkness into the marvelous light: anti-Black racism awareness in teacher education

PDF

Other duties as assigned: Black student affairs professionals navigating and learning to heal from racial battle fatigue at predominantly white institutions

PDF

A critical worldview: understanding identity and sense of belonging of underrepresented students' participation in study abroad

Asset Metadata

Creator Hernandez, Danny Robert (author)

Core Title Students with disabiltiies and identity development: higher education, ableism, meritocracy, and meaning making

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Degree Conferral Date 2021-08

Publication Date 07/18/2021

Defense Date 07/15/2021

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag ableism,College students,Disability,Higher education,identity,meritocracy,OAI-PMH Harvest

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Green, Alan (committee chair), Garcia-Montano, Guadalupe (committee member), Tobey, Patricia (committee member)

Creator Email drdrhernandez@gmail.com,drhernan@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC15602412

Unique identifier UC15602412

Legacy Identifier etd-HernandezD-9770

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Hernandez, Danny Robert

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu