University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Nothing without us: understanding the belongingness of students with disabilities

(USC Thesis Other)

Nothing without us: understanding the belongingness of students with disabilities

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Running head: BELONGINGNESS OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 1

Nothing Without Us: Understanding the Belongingness of Students with Disabilities
Morgan L. Baker
USC Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California

Master of Education (Postsecondary Education and Student Affairs)
Submitted to the thesis committee:
Charles H.F. Davis III, Ph.D.
Shafiqa Ahmadi, J.D.
Edward Roth, Ph.D.

August 15, 2019

BELONGINGNESS OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 2

Table of Contents
Chapter One: Introduction .......................................................................................................... 3
Statement of the Problem ...........................................................................................................................4
Purpose of the Study ..................................................................................................................................6
Scholarly Significance of the Study ...........................................................................................................7
Chapter Two: Literature Review and Theoretical Framework ............................................... 9
Literature Review .......................................................................................................................................9
Student belongingness. ........................................................................................................................10
Disability and higher education. ..........................................................................................................12
Disability and belongingness: self-advocacy, social relationships, and mastery. ................................14
Other Factors of Belonging. .................................................................................................................20
Theoretical Framework ............................................................................................................................23
Models of disability. ............................................................................................................................23
Belonging Framework. ........................................................................................................................25
Chapter Three: Research Methodology .................................................................................... 28
Philosophical Worldview .........................................................................................................................28
Research Design .......................................................................................................................................29
Research Methods ....................................................................................................................................29
Data Collection ........................................................................................................................................30
Research Site and Sampling Approach ....................................................................................................32
Research site. .......................................................................................................................................32
Sampling. .............................................................................................................................................32
Validity, Ethical Considerations, and Limitations ...................................................................................32
Chapter Four: Research Findings ............................................................................................. 35
Meet the Participants ................................................................................................................................35
Theme 1: Disability stigma played a role in disability belongingness ....................................................37
Theme 2: On-campus involvement impacted disability belonging development ....................................44
Theme 3: Cultural Identities influenced disability belongingness. ..........................................................48
Chapter Five: Discussion and Implications .............................................................................. 52
Discussion ................................................................................................................................................52
Disability Stigma. ................................................................................................................................53
Involvement. ........................................................................................................................................55
Cultural Identities. ................................................................................................................................56
Implications for Future Research .............................................................................................................58
Implications for Policy and Practice ........................................................................................................60
Summative Conclusion ............................................................................................................................62
References ..................................................................................................................................... 64
Appendix A: Protocol Questions .................................................................................................. 70
Appendix B: Inquiry Flyer ............................................................................................................ 71

BELONGINGNESS OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 3

Chapter One: Introduction
It is accepted by educators and researchers that the population with disabilities experience
heavy disadvantages on a systemic, cultural, social, and individual level. In the past, college was
an unattainable fantasy for those with disabilities. However, as our world becomes more
accessible and open-minded, increased opportunity allows for dreams to become a reality.
Students who once thought of college as the impossible are now graduating with degrees in the
humanities, technology, medicine, and law. Small steps, such as wheelchair accessible ramps and
elevators, as well as large steps, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, have
allowed students with disabilities to become a part of the collegiate community. Disability was
once considered sick and pathetic, but as society has progressed, those with disabilities are
viewed more as like-minded, intellectual individuals rather than people to inherently pity
(Charlon, 1998). However, though social movements and legislation have improved conditions,
severe disparities still persist for undergraduates with documented disabilities, including
academic performance, campus climate, and social inclusion (Harbour & Greenberg, 2017).
This study seeks to advance current knowledge of belongingness for students with
disabilities enrolling in four-year higher education institutions. In doing so, researchers and
educators can develop a better understanding on how to serve the growing population of college
students with disabilities. As it stands, college is financially demanding and socially
overwhelming for nontraditional students (Vaccaro & Newman, 2016). In the case of disability,
college is not always accessible to students due to barriers generated by the systems of higher
education institutions (Vance, Lipitz, & Parks, 2014). According to Hurtado and Carter,
belongingness is crucial when understanding those who “perceive themselves as marginal to the
mainstream life” (1997, p.324). Belongingness provides insight on a variety of phenomena for
minoritized college students, including social marginality, student motivation, and academic

BELONGINGNESS OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 4

achievement (Strayhorn, 2012). Current knowledge focuses primarily on the belongingness of
racially, gendered, and ethnically minoritized students, however, there is only a limited amount
of research focusing on the sense of belonging for students with documented disabilities. With
the use of qualitative methods, my study examined the connections between the three factors that
produce belongingness for students with disabilities: self-advocacy, social relationships, and
mastery.
Statement of the Problem
In 1990, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) established civil rights for people
with disabilities, stating that the law prohibits discrimination based on an individual's’ abilities in
specific contexts. Building on Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title II refers to
publically funded universities and Title III pertains to privately-funded universities—Title III
being the most relevant as the research site is a large, private research institution. Titles II and III
stated that higher education institutions must provide academic accommodations for students
with disabilities attending their institutions (Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990). Legally
mandated modifications and services must be reasonable, meaning that students gain equal
opportunity at the collegiate level, however adjustments do not significantly alter classroom
instruction. Today, common academic accommodations include extra time on examinations,
priority registration of courses, and note-taking services.
These reasonable accommodations created equal opportunities for college students with
disabilities and, not surprisingly, thus the ADA coincided with a substantial increase of college
attendance for students with disabilities (Evans, Broido, Brown, & Wilke, 2017). For instance, a
study by Newman, Wagner, Cameto, Knokey, and Shaver (2010) found that between 1990 and
2005, the percentage of high school graduates with disabilities who continued their education at

BELONGINGNESS OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 5

the postsecondary level increased from 26 percent to 46 percent. According to the United States
Department of Education, over 10 percent of undergraduates have one or more documented
disabilities (U.S. Department of Education, 2016).
Though students with disabilities are protected in terms of housing options and academic
accommodations—in accordance with the ADA and other legislation—students with disabilities
in higher education still have issues regarding belongingness. Sense of belonging, or
belongingness, was broadly defined by Strayhorn (2012) as an individual feeling respect and
value from their community, which creates an emotional connection between the individual and
community. Belongingness affects many aspects of a student’s experience both inside and
outside the classroom. It defines how the students view themselves within their campus
environment, which in turn, describes how they interact with the college community. By
examining belongingness, researchers gained insight on how and why students make specific
decisions during their academic career and social life.
Consistent with research on other marginalized groups, a poor sense of belonging among
students with disabilities can negatively affect college experiences and outcomes, making this a
critical issue in higher education (Vaccaro & Newman, 2016). Therefore, with the use of
Vaccaro, Daly-Cano, and Newman’s (2015) model, this study focused on how students with
disabilities experience belonging development in postsecondary contexts. In doing so, there can
be an increased understanding on how people with disabilities view themselves in higher
educational contexts and how exactly college educators can improve academic and social
conditions for the disabled population.

BELONGINGNESS OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 6

Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study was to learn about the belongingness of students with
disabilities. With the use of qualitative methods, belongingness of the students with disabilities
was examined and factors that affect belongingness were explored. Vaccaro, Daly-Cano, and
Newman’s (2015) Theoretical Model of Belonging for College Students with Disabilities, which
described belongingness as being generated by self-advocacy, social relationships, and mastery,
was employed. Taking into account that the disability identity is defined to be a holistic
experience rather than a single aspect of an individual, the study consequently examined other
belongingness factors and social identities that are not immediately addressed within the model
produced by Vaccaro et al. (2015) (Patton, Renn, Guido, & Quaye, 2016). In doing so, research
remained consistent with the definition of disability identity, as well as allowed an avenue for
future researchers to consider when conducting research on disability identity issues in higher
education. As seen in the findings, the connections between the three belonging factors were
manifested into themes as a way to describe the experiences of participants as they made sense of
their belonging. The aforementioned data was collected from one large, private research
university and the study was guided by the following research questions:
1. When navigating belonging, how do students with documented disabilities experience the
connections between self-advocacy, social relationships, and academic mastery?
1.1 Does Vaccaro, Daly-Cano, and Newman’s (2015) theoretical model hold true
when describing the sense of belonging for students with disabilities?
2. Outside of the proposed models, which other factors do students with disabilities believe
affect their sense of belonging on college campuses?
Through the use of a series of semi-structured interviews, there was an examination of
each proposed question. The first research question addressed each factor presented in the

BELONGINGNESS OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 7

Theoretical Model of Belonging for College Students with Disabilities. Insight on the interwoven
connections between each factor was presented in terms of three major themes and as so,
recommendations on future studies were also suggested. Given that the model was only recently
created, the presented sub-question directly addressed the rigor of the model by Vaccaro et al.
(2015) as a way to maintain credibility and academic integrity. In doing so, the sub-question
allowed room for critique and theoretical growth.
For the latter research question, narrative inquiry and phenomenological approaches are
used as a way to determine other potential factors affecting the belongingness of students with
disabilities not otherwise identified through the proposed theoretical model. The second question
was left open-ended, as to allow room for students with disabilities to express factors they
believe affect their belonging. As speculated, it was possible that other student identities, in
addition to one’s disability identity, could have played a role in belongingness for students, for
which the proposed study aimed to account and distinguish. This may have included racial,
ethnic, cultural, gendered, LGBTQIA+ identities as compounding dimensions of
marginalization—as inspired by Bell’s (2017) criticism that disability research was too white-
centric. Additionally, Vaccaro and Newman (2016) suggested that campus involvement can play
a role in how minorities develop belonging, which was emphasized again by Strayhorn (2012).
Though this study speculated potential factors, the semi-structured interviews allowed room for
students to decide which other factors affect belonging.
Scholarly Significance of the Study
Various studies examined belongingness for racial, ethnic, cultural, gendered,
LGBTQIA+ minorities, however there is little research regarding the sense of belonging for
students with disabilities. This is even more so true in the context of higher education, where

BELONGINGNESS OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 8

only a handful of scholarly papers directly address belongingness and its relation to disability.
When reviewing the famous works of Strayhorn (2012), who arguably founded modern research
regarding belongingness in higher education, passages addressed race, ethnicity, science identity,
gender, and education levels; however, disability was not mentioned. This was partly due to the
fact that there is a lack of modern research focusing on disability within higher education. For
instance, Peña (2014) found that between 1990 and 2010 there has been a substantial decrease in
publications involving students with disabilities enrolled in colleges. It can be inferred that there
was more research in 1990 because that was the year the Americans with Disabilities Act of
1990 was established and overtime, researchers have taken less of an interest on the subject
(Peña, 2014). However, since there are now more students with disabilities enrolled in higher
education than ever, it is critical that more recent research is conducted; especially, for the
emerging field of student belongingness.
In terms of foundations upon which to build, there are few studies that examine factors
contributing to students with disabilities’ belongingness, such as identity salience, poor self-
efficacy, issues of self-advocacy, disability stigma, lack of academic support, social factors, and
campus climate (Fleming et al., 2017; Vaccaro, Daly-Cano, & Newman, 2015). Most notably,
Vaccaro et al. (2015) produced a model to describe belongingness for those with disabilities. To
this date though, there are very few qualitative studies on student belongingness for those with
disabilities that include the disability narrative and discussed minority experiences as
compounding aspects of the disability identity. The following study built on the works Vaccaro
et al. (2015) by conducting scholarly-driven interviews that captured the essence of the three
belonging factors, intersection between disability and other personal/social identities, and
students with disabilities’ narrative regarding belongingness.

BELONGINGNESS OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 9

Chapter Two: Literature Review and Theoretical Framework
Literature Review
Though academic performance and persistence are normally associated with a student’s
educational abilities, modern researchers argue that the holistic college experience plays a larger
role in academic success. The importance of a holistic college experience is even more so
relevant for historically marginalized students, where Strayhorn (2012) emphasized that
students’ experiences both inside and outside the classroom, as well as their interaction with the
campus environment, can influence student outcomes. A rising term to describe this phenomenon
is student belongingness, which can describe a variety of higher educational outcomes for
minority students, including those who live with one or more documented disabilities. Student
belongingness refers to how connected a student feels to their college community and is
normally described as a human need (Strayhorn, 2012). According to Vaccaro et al. (2015),
students with disabilities generate student belongingness through three factors: self-advocacy
skills, social relationships, and mastery. Vaccaro and Newman (2016) noted that when
developing belongingness, historically marginalized students must experience a positive college
environment, as well as be involved on their college campus.
For the purposes of this study, there was an examination of research that was directly
related to students with disabilities’ sense of belonging. First, there is a brief review of the
literature related to student belongingness. Then, there is a discussion on disability in higher
education, which provided historical and research context regarding collegians with disabilities.
From there, the discussion narrowed in on disability and belongingness factors, as provided in
the theoretical model by Vaccaro et al. (2015). This included an examination of literature related
to self-advocacy, social relationships, and mastery for students with disabilities. This section was

BELONGINGNESS OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 10

guided by the initial research question: When navigating belonging, how do students with
disabilities experience the connections between self-advocacy, social relationships, and academic
mastery? Lastly, there was a review of literature on other potential factors that could contribute
to the sense of belonging for students with disabilities. This section was heavily referenced by
the second research question: Outside of the proposed models, which other factors do students
with disabilities believe affect their sense of belonging on college campuses?
Student belongingness. Sense of belonging, or belongingness, is defined as an
individual person feeling an emotional connection with a specific community. In the context of
my study, the community referred to faculty, staff, and peers within participants’ respective
academic programs. In higher education, this definition is further expanded to include a
“students’ perceived social support on campus” (Strayhorn, 2012, p. 2). Though definitions may
vary across fields, sense of belonging typically dealt with “students’ psychological experiences”,
as well as students’ support system and campus involvement (Strayhorn, 2012, p. 7).
Belongingness has been reported to be a human need, as according to the early works of
Baumeister and Leary (1995) and argued again by Strayhorn (2012). Belongingness can have an
impact on a variety of student outcomes such as student engagement, involvement, success,
achievement, and motivation (Strayhorn, 2012).
Student belongingness is important to consider in higher education, as often times it can
explain students’ feelings of isolation and loneliness. If students struggle to fit in or feel they do
not have a strong social support, Strayhorn (2012) argued that college students become
unmotivated and therefore are less likely to succeed. This concept was reinforced by outside
studies, which reported that poor levels of social belonging can lead to mental health issues, poor
academic performance, and a decrease in the overall well-being (Fleming, Oertle, Plotner, &

BELONGINGNESS OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 11

Hakun, 2017; Hurtado & Carter, 1997; Johnson, Soldner, Leonard, Alvarez, Inkelas, Rowan-
Kenyon, & Longerbeam, 2007; Zumbrunn, McKim, Buhs, & Hawley, 2014). For example, a
mixed methods study by Zumbrunn et al. (2014) explored how unsupportive classroom
environments directly affected students’ sense of belonging and, therefore, negatively impacted
student motivation and achievement for that specific course.
Research showed that the belongingness of minority students was typically lower
compared to majority and privileged students (Johnson et al., 2007; Strayhorn, 2012). For
instance, Johnson et al. (2007) conducted a national-level quantitative study and found that
college students who are Black, Hispanic/Latinx, and Asian Pacific Americans reported to have a
poor sense of belonging when compared to White college students. Using Tinto’s theoretical
model of students’ departure, Hurtado and Carter (1997) examined the belongingness of first,
second, and third year Latinx students as a way to explore the experience of college transitions
for minorities. The results showed that minority students’ sense of belonging typically suffered
due to a poor transitional period between high school and college. These studies by Johnson et al.
(2007), as well as Hurtado and Carter (1997), reinforced the idea that minoritized and historically
marginalized students need more social support, as required in the definition of belongingness
produced by Strayhorn (2012).
In terms of sense of belonging development, Vaccaro and Newman (2016) performed a
study with the use of grounded theory to produce a model of belonging. The authors examined
minoritized and privileged college students and from there, presented a model to explain how
sense of belonging is generated for first years. Notably, this model considered students with
disabilities as a minoritized population. According to the model, the three important factors
included: environments, relationships, and involvement. Vaccaro and Newman mentioned that

BELONGINGNESS OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 12

their “model suggests that privileged and minoritized students make meaning of belonging in
unique ways” (Vaccaro & Newman, 2016, p.939). This implied that, when examining students
with disabilities, it is important to recognize that those who have disabilities may develop and
recognize their sense of belonging in different ways compared to able-bodied students. For
instance, Vaccaro and Newman (2016) found that minoritized students developed their
belongingness by becoming more involved on campus, whereas privileged students tended to
focus more on “fun and mattering” (Vaccaro & Newman, 2016, p.939).
Disability and higher education. Over one billion of the world’s population lives with
one or more disabilities which, according to the World Health Organization, makes disability one
of the largest identities in modern society (World Health Organization, 2018). Within the United
States, one in five people have been diagnosed with at least one disability (United States Census,
2012). When narrowing down even further, a recent study by the U.S. Department of Education
stated that over 10 percent of college students live with one or more disabilities (NCES, 2016).
However, the federal statistics only take into consideration students who choose to identify with
having a disability or who feel comfortable disclosing their disability (Patton et al., 2016).
Studies showed that many students with disabilities choose to not disclose their ability status due
to disability stigma, disability stereotypes, and other social factors (Cox, Thompson, Anderson,
Mintz, Locks, Morgan, Edelstein, Wolz, 2017; Denhart, 2008). Therefore, it is likely that the
number of postsecondary students with disabilities is larger than the percentage produced by the
U.S. census.
In college, there is a variety of diagnosed, undocumented, unacknowledged, and
unknown disabilities. Disability is defined as (1) an individual with a physical or mental
impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, (2) they have

BELONGINGNESS OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 13

documentation of such impairment, and/or (3) they are regarded of having such impairment.
Major life activities include eating, sleeping, breathing, reading, walking, hearing, and more
(Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990). This definition of disability is widely used by higher
education professionals (Vance et al. 2014). Within higher education, the most common
disability categories are physical, psychological, and learning/developmental disabilities.
Examples of physical disabilities include blindness, deafness, Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI),
Ehler Danlos Syndrome (EDS), autoimmune diseases, quadriplegia, or amputated limbs.
Meanwhile, the psychological category refers to disabilities such as depression, anxiety, Post
Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), or eating disorders. The last and most common disability
category in higher education is learning/developmental disabilities, which normally include
Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), dyslexia, and Autism Spectrum Disorder
(ASD) (Evans et al., 2017).
For decades, students with disabilities have been presented with challenges not otherwise
faced by their able-bodied peers. With the use of disability theory, Denhart (2008) performed a
qualitative study on eleven student participants with learning disabilities to determine
institutional barriers students face in higher education. Three major themes occurred throughout
the study: students feeling misunderstood, students feeling inequity in workloads compared to
their able-bodied counterparts, and students feeling the need to devise clever strategies to obtain
success. Feeling misunderstood by the college community was oftentimes caused by the lack of
social relationships, which according to Vaccaro and Newman (2016), can decrease the level of
belongingness for minoritized students. Additionally, inequity in workloads and the need to
devise clever academic strategies can affect academic mastery, which Vaccaro et al. (2015)
argued to be a key aspect of disability belongingness.

BELONGINGNESS OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 14

Many of these challenges are rooted in ableism, which is defined as discrimination in
favor of able-bodied individuals (Vance et al., 2014). As Charlton (1998) wrote, “people with
disabilities are usually seen as sick and pitiful, and in fact many became disabled through disease
and most live in pitiful conditions” (p. 34). With the use of the social model of disability, Gabel
and Miskovic (2014) interpreted how people with disabilities are excluded or silenced at higher
education institutions through containment, a strategy commonly used to silence oppressed
groups. In a section of the study, 18 students who identified as disabled were interviewed in
order to understand what universities can do better to support students with disabilities. It was
found that some were unaware of their eligibility for accommodations, while others were not
properly accommodated by their instructors. In other cases, students were too uncomfortable
identifying themselves as disabled and/or had trouble disclosing their disability with the
university as to receive academic support (Gabel & Miskovic, 2014). These results are similar to
Denhart (2008), as this silencing of the disability voice can prevent healthy development of the
disability identity, and therefore negatively impact the sense of belonging for students with
disabilities.
Disability and belongingness: self-advocacy, social relationships, and mastery. The
Theoretical Model of Belonging for College Students with Disabilities enforces that self-
advocacy, social relationships, and mastery generates belongingness for collegians with
disabilities (Vaccaro et al., 2015).
In the context of disability, self-advocacy is defined as the ability to represent oneself and
advocate for oneself when attempting to receive levels of accessibility. This is crucial for
students with disabilities because self-advocacy is required during the academic accommodation
process. Previously, students reported that their ability to self-advocate has an impact on their

BELONGINGNESS OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 15

sense of belonging and vice versa. Additionally, self-awareness of disability had a positive
impact on students’ ability to self-advocate for themselves (Vaccaro et al., 2015).
Social relationships typically refers the social connections students with disabilities have
with others. Within Vaccaro et al.’s (2015) study, participants emphasized the importance of
supportive relationships in their belongingness. More so, two students stated that meeting
students with disabilities similar to themselves significantly improved belongingness
development, as they no longer felt singled out (Vaccaro et al., 2015).
From here, mastery commonly reflects academic success, a students’ willingness to seek
academic challenges, and students’ commitment to learn new things. For instance, the Vaccaro et
al., (2015) examined if academic grades affected the sense of belonging, finding that mastery had
a strong relation to the belongingness of students with disabilities. More so, the authors found
that the “master of the student role related directly to students’ ability to achieve high grades”
(Vaccaro et al., 2015, p. 679).
Self-advocacy. When reviewing the history of disability and self-advocacy, Vance et al. (2014)
stated that the United States legislation plays a role in the development of self-advocacy skills. The
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) was designed so that K-12 schools are responsible for
identifying and accommodating students with disabilities. However, the Americans with Disabilities Act
of 1990 was created with the intent that college students with disabilities are responsible for registering
with disability services to receive housing and academic accommodations (Charlton, 1998; Vance et al.,
2014). This means that college students with disabilities are responsible for self-advocating for
themselves rather than relying on a system to automatically support them, More so, collegians with
disabilities are required to initiate and navigate conversations regarding their disability and ideal
accommodations, making self-advocacy skills crucial for those with disabilities pursuing postsecondary
degrees. Unfortunately, a large number of college students do not have the chance to develop their self-

BELONGINGNESS OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 16

advocacy skills during their K-12 education and, as a result, enter college ill-prepared (Vance et al.,
2014).
When calling into question how students with disabilities develop self-advocacy skills,
Daly-Cano, Vaccaro, and Newman (2015) sought information on when and how students with
disabilities use self-advocacy skills. The authors categorized the use of self-advocacy in three
parts: proactive, reactive, and retrospective. Proactive self-advocacy referred to students with
disabilities who seek accommodations before they need them. For example, students who
register with disability services before their first semester of college are called proactive self-
advocates. Reactive self-advocacy was when a student was forced to self-advocate for
themselves due to a presented challenge. For instance, one student with a learning disability had
a professor who refused to fully accommodate her during a quiz. This forced the student to self-
advocate for herself, otherwise she would have been put at a disadvantage in her course. The last
category, retrospective self-advocacy, was when students self-advocated for themselves in the
present after learning from their self-advocacy mistakes in the past. For example, one student
with low vision recounted modifying her schedule once she found out all five classes were
visually taxing. She noted that, “I am doing the five-year plan instead of the four-year, because I
discovered this semester trying to do five classes was too much” (Daly-Cano et al., 2015, p.222).
The three self-advocacy categories produced by Daly-Cano et al. (2015) are used in my study
when describing the self-advocacy component of sense of belonging for participants with
disabilities.
In terms of obstacles that affect self-advocacy development, Hong (2015) performed a
qualitative study on barriers students with disabilities face in higher education. Everyday barriers
such as faculty perceptions, unfit academic advisors, college stressors, low quality of support
services all negatively impacted the development of students with disabilities’ self-advocacy

BELONGINGNESS OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 17

skills (Hong, 2015). Similarly, Denhart (2008) discussed how those with disabilities often
experienced trouble with accommodations from faculty and disability stigma from their peers.
These negative experiences affected collegians with disabilities’ desire to obtain
accommodations and therefore, they developed poor self-advocacy habits.
In terms of self-advocacy and the disability identity, a study by Cox, Thompson,
Anderson, Mintz, Locks, Morgan, Edelstein, and Wolz (2017) found that self-advocacy played a
role in the development of the disability identity for college students with Autism Spectrum
Disorder (ASD). The authors found that students with ASD felt the need to separate their public
and private identities, which complicated self-advocacy skills. For example, if a student tried to
conceal their ASD in their public identity, it was not possible for them to self-advocate to
professors for academic accommodations.
Social relationships.
In terms of social relationships, Evans, Broido, Brown, and Wilke (2017) outlined three
important relationships: experiences with faculty, experiences with staff from disability services,
and experiences with peers. Therefore, for the purposes of my study, each relationship suggested
by Evans et al. (2017) was evaluated.
Oftentimes, students with disabilities felt that faculty create barriers. For instance, Evans
et al. (2017) mentioned a study by Baker, Boland, and Nowik (2012) that stated that “about 25%
of the students with disabilities agreed or strongly agreed that they were hesitant or afraid of
talking with their professors” (Evans et al., 2017, p.256). From here, Baker et al. (2012) found
that one-third of students with disabilities felt that faculty would treat them differently if they
knew the student had a disability. In terms of staff, Denhart (2008) found that positive
relationships with disability resources can help students feel more included on the college

BELONGINGNESS OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 18

campus, with one students stating that their campus specialist was a “transformative figure” in
their life (p. 491).
Peers played a role in how students with disabilities perceived themselves in the college
community. For instance, Denhart (2008) found that students with learning disabilities felt valid
in their college community when they could be more open about disability issues. From here, it
was asserted that if students with disabilities could interact with students of similar conditions,
they would feel more comfortable on the college campus. However, very few colleges foster a
space that allows interactions between those with disabilities (Evans et al., 2017). Miller (2017)
conducted a study on disability identity development and social media, indicating that collegians
with disabilities oftentimes used social media as an alternative platform to meet and interact with
other disabled individuals as a way to make up for the lack of on-campus disability spaces. These
perceived relationships students with disabilities experienced had an impact on their ability to
generate a positive sense of belonging.
Mastery. The easiest way to examine mastery with my study was through academic
performance and academic confidence (Evans et al., 2017; Vaccaro et al., 2015). When
considering academic success, disability stigma and stereotypes often played a role. Within the
study by Vaccaro et al. (2015), it was found that students with disabilities’ “identity as a student
and sense of belonging increased when faculty and peers recognized their academic success”
(Vaccaro et al., 2015, p.679). When academic performance was acknowledged by others within
their academic community, students with disabilities recounted that they believed disability
stigma and stereotypes had less of an effect on their success (Vaccaro et al., 2015).
When considering mastery and academic goals, a study by Summers and Svinicki (2007)
examined classroom communities in higher education as a way to see which teaching styles have

BELONGINGNESS OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 19

the best impact on students' achievement goals. The study found that students were more likely
to feel more satisfied with mastery goals in a cooperative learning environment (Summers &
Svinicki, 2007).
The amount of access to academic support services influenced college success for
students with disabilities, especially those with diagnosed learning challenges. Troiano, Liefeld,
and Trachtenberg (2010) examined 262 college students with learning disabilities over the course
of five years, taking into account attendance and graduation rates. In short, students with
disabilities who used academic support centers typically received higher grade point averages.
The attendance rate of learning resource centers was “a predictor of graduation in 68% of the
cases studied” (Troiano et al., 2010, p.41). Given that Vaccaro et al. (2015) believed grades are
an indicator of academic mastery in the Theoretical Model of Belonging for College Students
with Disabilities, knowing that academic resources play a role in academic success provided
insight to my study on how students with disabilities generate their belongingness.
When considering other factors of academic mastery, it was apparent that student
expectations played a role in the academic experiences of collegians with disabilities. Carroll,
Muller, and Pattison (2016) examined first years students with “health impairments,” discovering
that educational expectations lowered over the course of the first academic year (Carroll et al.,
2016, p.771). The authors used the term “signals” to describe the lowering of educational
expectation, stating that signals created a “sense” that earning a college degree was or was not
possible (Carroll et al., 2016, p.772). Results indicated that students felt academically unfit due
to the reception of negative signals in their degree process. Negative signals are perpetuated by
the disadvantages such as lack of academic and social relationships, as well as discrimination of
health impairments. Additionally, academic curriculums oftentimes did not consider the varying

BELONGINGNESS OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 20

abilities of college students, which placed students with mental health impairments on an
unsuccessful projected academic path. Thus, negative signals, which predict educational
expectations, provided insight to my study on the academic mastery of students with disabilities
(Carroll et al., 2016).
Other Factors of Belonging. Outside of the three factors presented in the Theoretical
Model of Belonging for College Students with Disabilities, other aspects in a student’s life can
affect their levels of belonging. According to Patton et al. (2016), disability is considered a
holistic experience, meaning that other personal/social identities such as race, ethnicity, culture,
gender, and sexuality can affect how students with disabilities perceive their belonging. This was
reinforced again by Bell (2017), who stated that many models of disability are limited as they
only considered majority identities. Therefore, in order to understand how students with
disabilities generate their sense of belonging, there was review of knowledge regarding
minoritized identities and their relation to the disability identity.
Personal and Social Identities. Racially and ethnically diverse students with disabilities
faced more disparities when attending college compared to White students with disabilities.
More so, students with disabilities from minoritized racial and ethnic backgrounds tended to
“experience a greater amount of misdiagnosis and underdiagnosis then their White peers” (Evan
et al., 2017, p.160). Travers, Tincani, and Krezmien (2013) found that African American,
Hispanic, and American Indian students with disabilities are less likely to be diagnosed with
having Autism Spectrum Disorder, due partially because these populations are less likely to
receive proper clinical screenings from their secondary schools.
Blanchett (2006), who studied why there is a disproportionate amount of representation
of African Americans in special education programs, attributed disparities to white privilege and

BELONGINGNESS OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 21

racism, stating that inequalities are perpetuated by biased educational pedagogy, practice, and
policy. For instance, one specific study by Banks and Hughes (2013) explored the experiences of
African American men with documented disabilities. The researchers suggested that those who
use the disability label faced lower expectations from peers and professors, which as a result,
influenced their student success. This phenomenon forced many African American men with
disabilities to create a counternarrative as a way to avoid disclosure of disability or reject the
disability identity altogether (Banks & Hughes, 2013). Another study by Walker and Test (2011)
identified issues of self-advocacy for African American students with disabilities, stating that
many African Americans with disabilities were not given the chance to develop self-advocacy
strategies and, as a result, did not receive the proper academic accommodations necessary for
student success.
Previous research showed that students with disabilities of varying cultural backgrounds
tend to have a unique experience in the American higher education system. For example, when
considering international students with disabilities, Awoniyi (2014) explained that when
participants arrived to the college campus, “they have to learn how to balance their native
culture, American culture, and culture of the college of university.” (p.172). The process of
balancing varying cultural views of disability can make it difficult on students with disabilities as
they make sense of their belonging, as oftentimes views contradict one another (Vance et al.,
2014). Thus, my study made sure to take into consideration varying cultures and how they
impact the participants with disabilities.
Men and women are accessing higher education at similar rates; however, experiences
differed for varying genders (Evans et al., 2017). Baldridge and Swift (2013) performed a study
on 279 people with hearing loss as to examine self-limiting behavior during the accommodation

BELONGINGNESS OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 22

process, with one of the focuses being on gender and request holding frequencies. Compared to
women, men are less willing to seek accommodations presumably due to stereotypes and issues
of masculinity (Baldridge & Swift, 2013). However, though women are more comfortable with
requesting accommodations, a higher education study showed that 32 percent of female students
with disabilities reported being sexually assaulted compared to the 18 percent of able-bodied
female students (National Council on Disability, 2018).
There was limited research on disability and sexuality in postsecondary contexts.
However, Miller (2012) conducted a qualitative study on 25 LGBTQIA+ students with
disabilities and examined how their identities developed with the use of social media. Results
indicated that engaging with others online, whether it ranged from lurking to actively posting,
helped students gain validation of their disability and LGBTQIA+ identities (Miller 2012).
Disability and involvement. Strayhorn (2012) emphasized that campus involvement determined
the levels of belongingness for minority students, including those with disabilities. Though the
Theoretical Model of Belonging for College Students with Disabilities does not address involvement, an
alternative model by Vaccaro and Newman (2016) found that involvement was crucial for minoritized
students in higher education, stating that “all students talked about how getting involved in campus
extracurricular activities was connected to their sense of belonging” (p.935). For privileged students,
involvement focused more on having fun whereas for minoritized students, also known as those with
disabilities, involvement focused more on creating connections with the college community. For instance,
students with disabilities’ amount of involvement may only improve their sense of belonging if “those
activities [allow] them to be their authentic selves” (Vaccaro & Newman, 2016, p.935). Therefore, my
study explored campus involvement and how students with disabilities approached on-campus
opportunities outside of academic requirements.

BELONGINGNESS OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 23

From here, a scholarly article by Bialka, Morro, Brown, and Hannah (2017) studied how
student organizations can break barriers and build bridges for college students with disabilities.
Bialka et al. (2017) found that students with disabilities who participant in student
organizations—in particular, organizations centered around accessibility—felt that they better
connected to the college campus, as they were socially integrated through on-campus
involvement. Prior to joining organizations, participants felt isolated, but after joining
organizations, participants were able to make friends and dispel ableist misconceptions—a form
of self-advocacy (Vaccaro et al. 2015). To summarize, students who felt “isolation” were now
fully “integrated” into the college campus due to on-campus involvement (Bialka, 2017, p.157).
Theoretical Framework
Models of disability. For my study, disability was defined by both the disability medical
and social model. Disability is considered a social construct in accordance with the disability
social model, whereas the medical model considers a disability to be a fixed issue to those living
with disabilities (Shakespeare, 2017). By social construct, Shakespeare (2017) framed disability
with regard to how society is structured to disenfranchise people with disabilities. As so,
“disabled people are an oppressed group, and often non-disabled people and organisations… are
the causes or contributors to that oppression” (Shakespeare, 2017, p.198); meaning, disability
was described to be an institutionalized and societal driven oppression. An advantage of the
social model was that it allowed room for “improving the self-esteem of disabled people and
building a positive sense of collective belonging” (Shakespeare, 2017, p.198). Accordingly, this
model assisted in the understanding of how students with disabilities perceived and experienced
the postsecondary contexts within which they live, work, and learn. Additionally, the social
model offered an intersectional framework, as it addressed other personal/social identities

BELONGINGNESS OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 24

students with disabilities experience, such as race, ethnicity, culture, gender, and sexuality. Thus,
the intersectional framework assisted in the second guided research question.
However, the application of the social model of disability posed some limitations for my
study. Fortunately, the medical model of disability, which defined disability as an individual
deficit, addressed gaps within the social model. The social model implied that impairments
caused by disabilities are not a problem; however, this is not a universal perspective for those
with disabilities. As a result, the social model neglected certain disability narratives, especially
those who felt that negative symptoms are caused by the disability and not by social/institutional
interactions (Shakespeare, 2017). Additionally, the disability medical model is used in the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and therefore, is employed by student affairs
professionals in higher education when classifying students’ disability status (Vance et al.,
2014). Therefore, my qualitative study considered both definitions of disability found within
each model as a way to be consistent with how the universities perceived students with medical
conditions and how those with disabilities perceived themselves within educational contexts.
However, after thorough consideration of my collected data, the moral model was also
included as a framework to further understanding of the findings in my qualitative study. In
varying cultures, disability is associated with guilt, shame, or sin. This phenomenon is described
through the moral model, “which places blame on the individual with the disability (and/or
his/her parents) causing feelings of shame and doubt for the individual and the family” (McCoy,
Owens, Dickenson, & Walker, 2013). As a result of these negative perceptions, families in
varying cultures may hide their family members with disabilities from the public as to
disassociate with guilt and/or sin—creating a public versus private identity for culturally diverse
people with disabilities who experience the moral model. One author found that cultures ascribed

BELONGINGNESS OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 25

to the moral model encourage people with disabilities to develop levels of self-hatred. As seen in
extreme, religious cases, people with disabilities may be punished as they are considered sinners
or inherently evil (McCoy et al., 2013). The moral model was valuable to my study, as
coincidently, all five participants are either international students or first generation Americans
from culturally diverse backgrounds. Each participant experienced the moral model to an extent,
therefore I found that it was crucial to include the moral model within my theoretical
frameworks.
Belonging Framework. When examining the sense of belonging for students with
disabilities, the theoretical framework provided by Vaccaro, Daly-Cano, and Newman (2015)
was applied. The authors presented a model titled the Theoretical Model of Belonging for
College Students with Disabilities. With the use of grounded theory, Vaccaro et al. (2015)
examined eight college students with disabilities as a way to determine how belongingness is
developed. To summarize, belongingness was generated by three factors: self-advocacy, social
relationships, and mastery. For example, if a student had a difficult time self-advocating for
themselves, this would decrease their sense of belonging in college and could therefore have an
impact on their social relationships and academic mastery (Vaccaro et al., 2015). The
relationship between self-advocacy, social relationships, and mastery can be examined in Figure
1 below from Vaccaro et al. (2015, p. 677):

BELONGINGNESS OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 26

Figure 1. Theoretical Model of Belonging for College Students with Disabilities (Vaccaro et al.,
2015, p.677).
However, there are still some limitations in this theoretical framework. For one, it only
considered self-advocacy, social relationships, and mastery. Another belongingness development
model of produced by Vaccaro and Newman (2016) suggested that environment, relationships,
and involvement played a large role for minoritized postsecondary students when they try to
make meaning of their belonging. Additionally, it is suggested by Cox, Thompson, Anderson,
Mintz, Locks, Morgan, Edelstein, and Wolz (2017) that students with disabilities tended to have
public and private identities, which may complicate the development of belongingness. Given
the fact that the development of the disability identity is considered holistic, it is possible that
other minoritized identities may come into play during the development of belongingness, such
as racial, ethnic, culture, and gender identities (Patton, Renn, Guido, & Quaye, 2016). Therefore,
the Theoretical Model of Belonging for College Students with Disabilities was used as a baseline

BELONGINGNESS OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 27

for examining students with disabilities’ belongingness and from there, other factors that may not
be explicitly expounded on in the model was taken into consideration.

BELONGINGNESS OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 28

Chapter Three: Research Methodology
A qualitative approach was used to understand sense of belonging and the connections
between self-advocacy, social relationships, and academic mastery. According to Saldaña and
Omasta (2018), qualitative research allows an exploration of “what people say, do, write, and
create” (p.3). Thus, a qualitative approach allowed an understanding of students with disabilities’
experiences on the college campus which, according to Strayhorn (2012), explained how
participants make sense of their belonging. Flicke (2007) further described qualitative methods
as “an understanding of a process or relation” of experiences (p.2). Given that the feeling of
belonging is an ongoing process (Strayhorn, 2012), this study benefitted from qualitative
methodology as it primarily focused on the ongoing development of belonging.
Philosophical Worldview
Both the transformative and constructivist paradigms were applied throughout this study.
The constructivist worldview typically considers the individual perspective and how an
individual’s experience creates meaning in the world. This was helpful as oftentimes
belongingness and the disability identity are created through students’ experiences (Patton et al.,
2016; Vaccaro et al., 2015). In fact, Strayhorn (2012) described belonging as being generated
through the student's perceptions and psychological experiences, therefore constructivism
aligned with the definition of belonging used throughout the study. Meanwhile, the
transformative worldview focuses on political change and reform. The disability social model
stated that disability was created through ableist construction and the silencing of the disability
voice (Denhart, 2008; Evans et al., 2017). In the past, similar worldviews have been invoked
when studying students with disabilities and other marginalized groups in higher education. For
instance, disability belongingness in Vaccaro et al. (2015), as well as minority belongingness in

BELONGINGNESS OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 29

Vaccaro and Newman (2016) both used constructivist paradigms and qualitative approaches
within their research methods. Therefore, the integration of the transformative approach, in
additional to constructivist paradigms helped in the understanding of belongingness development
and its connection to disability.
Research Design
The research design was based around phenomenology and narrative inquiry, as the study
involved experiences and meaning behind the experiences, as well as how said experiences are
interwoven into the disability narrative. According to Flick (2007), phenomenology is a “careful
description and analyses of consciousness, with a focus on the subjects’ life world” (p.118). The
use of phenomenology in the research design allowed an understanding of each student’s
perspective when they made sense of their belonging. Meanwhile, narrative inquiry is described
as how a series of experiences are weaved into the overall larger narrative of a population
(Clandinin & Connelly, 2000). As seen in the works of Davis (2018), Charlton (1998), Vance et
al. (2014), the narrative inquiry design aligned with research designs in Disability Studies, where
qualitative data was often used to explain the larger disability narrative (Couser, 2017). It is only
fitting then that the study continued the tradition of including narrative inquiry and approaches in
the research design. In doing so, the study can be compared to current works within Disability
Studies. Therefore, in addition to a phenomenological design, there was an incorporation of
narrative approaches to better understand individual experiences and how they fit into the larger
picture of disability narrative.
Research Methods
In accordance with many qualitative studies, the primary data collection method for my
study included semi-structured interviews from which an evaluation of values, attitudes, and

BELONGINGNESS OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 30

beliefs were employed. Semi-structured interviews are a useful methodological tool in the study
of disability, especially given the difficulty to otherwise directly observe disability experiences
in higher education due to privacy laws and policies. Additionally, semi-structured interviews
allowed participants to provide personal histories and experiential narratives, which are crucial
for phenomenological research designs. In doing so, there can be an understanding on how
participants made meaning out of their lived experiences. An advantage of semi-structured
interviews was that the method offered researchers and myself a “significant latitude to adjust
course as needed” which, in the case of my study, was beneficial when exploring the connections
between self-advocacy, social relationships, and academic mastery, as well as other factors
affecting the feeling of belonging (Saldaña & Omasta, 2018, p.91)
A list of complete, detailed protocol questions covered the first research question, which
examined self-advocacy, social relationships, and mastery (Vaccaro et al., 2015). For the second
guided research question, a less formal and unstructured protocol was administered as to allow
students with disabilities to discuss other factors outside the theoretical model that they think
contributed to the development of their belongingness. The unstructured portion of the interview
largely involved probing questions related to earlier responses students made during the semi-
structured interview exploring the first guided research question.
Data Collection
When using the qualitative approach during this research study, interviews were used
during data collection phase. When collecting data, there was an implementation of triangulation,
also known as “the use of at least three different sources or types (e.g., participants, sites,
methods) of data, collected for purposes of comparison, corroboration, and/or synthesis”
(Saldaña & Omasta, 2018, p. 420). Five participants were selected based on availability and from

BELONGINGNESS OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 31

there, each participant underwent a set of protocol questions. In doing so, the study ensured that
all collected data was rigorous and multidimensional.
There existed a singular interview protocol—see Appendix A—that was broken into
three separate, but related parts that allowed participants to discuss the areas of (1) personal
information, (2) self-advocacy, social relationships, and mastery and (3) other aspects of
belongingness. In terms of self-advocacy, students were placed in one of three categories:
proactive, reactive, and retrospective self-advocate (Daly-Cano, Vaccaro, & Newman, 2015).
When considering social relationships, faculty, staff, and peer relationships were examined
(Evans et al., 2017). Additionally, networks and support systems were factored into the
interviews. Lastly, mastery was evaluated based on academic grades, performance, and
confidence (Jenson, Petri, Day, Truman, & Duffy, 2011; Summers & Svinicki, 2007).
The interviews then shifted to allow the participants to talk about other aspects that may
contribute to their level of belongingness in their respective programs. For instance, I examined
whether or not other social identities such as race, ethnicity, culture, and gender affected their
sense of belonging (Patton, Renn, Guido, & Quaye, 2016; Vaccaro & Newman, 2016).
Additionally, questions involving level of involvement were asked, as outside studies found
these may have an impact on sense of belonging (Strayhorn, 2012; Vaccaro & Newman, 2016).
Otherwise, participants were given a chance to speak on anything else on their minds.
Additionally, secondary data sources were considered in the study, which consisted of
ethnographic fieldnotes from an observation of a disability services testing center as well as two
structured interviews with two different students with physical disabilities. These data were
collected in Fall 2018 during an Applied Educational Ethnography course. Tapes, transcriptions,

BELONGINGNESS OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 32

and memos were included as part of secondary data sources, all of which served as a guiding
point for the development of the three-part interview protocol.
Research Site and Sampling Approach
Research site. The research site was located at a private, research institution in Southern
California. This university was considered a top undergraduate program in the country, as well as
known for its diversity and inclusion. The university provided housing and academic
accommodations through a department of disability services. There was no designated cultural or
social space for students with disabilities outside of the provided academic services.
Sampling. For the participant selection, the study collaborated with on-campus diversity
centers, student resource centers, student organizations, and university announcements page. A
liaison was asked to reach out to their student population with an inquiry flyer—see Appendix B.
Given time restraints, five student participants were selected based on a first come, first serve
basis; meaning, participants who scheduled their interviews first were selected to participate in
the study. Participants were required to have documented disabilities and be comfortable with
disclosing personal information regarding their disability, including a verbal confirmation of
disability history, diagnoses, symptoms, and other relevant information. This sampling technique
was employed as a consideration of the privacy of student identities, as previous research has
shown many students with disabilities often do not wish to publicly disclose their disability
(Vance, Lipitz, & Parks, 2014). Participants were given an incentive of $25 to the university
bookstore.
Validity, Ethical Considerations, and Limitations
Given that the study used qualitative methods, the reliability of findings are limited, as
qualitative studies typically cannot yield the same results more than once (Saldaña & Omasta,

BELONGINGNESS OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 33

2018). Even so, the data remained valid. In terms of internal validity, consistent memos,
transcripts, and recordings were collectively utilized as to track the accuracy of the analytical
observations conducted throughout the interviews. As a way to remain externally valid, both
narrative approaches used in Disability Studies, as well as sampling methods and coding
procedures commonly used in higher educational research, were implemented. By using these
established methods, research findings can be used in related academic fields and, as a result,
hold real world applications.
Two major ethical considerations that generated limitations within the study are disability
disclosure and participant confidentiality. As Vance et al. (2014) stated, students with disabilities
oftentimes wish to conceal their disability from the college population due to disability stigma
and stereotypes. As a result, sensitivity on disability disclosure topics was a crucial consideration
during the research process. Thus, word choice was taken into consideration during data
collection. From here, confidentiality was emphasized, not only because of research
confidentiality, but also due to laws such as the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the
Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) (Evans, Broido, Brown, & Wilke, 2017).
This meant that students and their ability status were protected at all costs. As so, personal
identifiers were removed and replaced in the research findings, making it so that the privacy of
the participants was emphasized and respected throughout the study.
In qualitative research, a researcher’s positionality is unavoidable because the researcher
serves as the primary observation tool (Saldaña & Omasta, 2018). In this case, my perspective on
disability belonging was informed by my own experiences as one of the first deaf students to
graduate from my undergraduate institution. However, Saldaña and Omasta (2018) stated that
having a relation to qualitative research can provide further insights that non-members may not

BELONGINGNESS OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 34

necessarily consider. From here, Saldaña and Omasta (2018) wrote that a “respectful balance
between facts and feelings is necessary to ensure a trustworthy account of the investigation”
(p.36). As a researcher, I was honest throughout the study and remained objective during
interviews, thus positionality did not influence data collection and the analysis section (Dunbar,
Rodriguez, & Parker 2003). In fact, positionality allowed for an understanding of concepts and
experiences, as well as assisted in establishing rapport

BELONGINGNESS OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 35

Chapter Four: Research Findings
Interviews took place with five collegians with documented disabilities over the course of
three weeks. In the first section, there was a brief introduction of the five participants. From here,
findings regarding the belongingness of the participants with disabilities was presented through
three major themes: (1) Disability stigma played a role in disability belongingness, (2) On-
campus involvement impacted disability belonging development, and (3) Cultural identities
influenced disability belongingness. In doing so, there was an understanding on how participants
experienced the connections between the three disability belonging factors—self-advocacy,
social relationships, and mastery. The findings implicated that the disability belonging model
was complex and the results provided insight on how students with disabilities made sense of
their belonging in postsecondary contexts.
Meet the Participants
Jackie is a second-year engineering student who is interested in medicine and science.
She is unilaterally deaf, where she requires preferential seating and captions for video lectures.
Jackie notes that she does not use Real-Time Captioning (CART) at the moment, though she
would be interested in using it. She comes from a Latinx background.
Arjun is a first-year engineering student and identifies as an Indian American, as his
parents are from India. He has two formal diagnoses, including Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder
(OCD) and Dysgraphia. The latter disability is a learning difference that makes it difficult to
transcribe information. Arjun needs note-taking and extra time on examinations, but is not
currently receiving any form of these accommodations due to difficulties navigating the
accommodation system.

BELONGINGNESS OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 36

Katie is a second-year engineer who attended middle school and high school in China.
She identifies as Chinese and gay. Katie has two documented disabilities, including moderate
hearing loss and Attention-Deficit Disorder (ADD). She grew up with hearing loss, however she
was only recently diagnosed with ADD. In terms of accommodations, she uses Real-Time
Captioning (CART) and extra time on examinations.
Carlos is a third-year studying chemistry and identifies as gay and Latinx, as well as uses
non-binary gender pronouns. They are originally from South America but once coming to
America for their college education, they were formally diagnosed with Schizophrenia, Clinical
Depression, and Anxiety Disorder. Therefore, Carlos requires extra time on examinations,
extended deadlines for assignments, and extra absences in the case that they have an “episode.”
Kamille is a first-year Spanish and psychology student who self-identifies as a Latinx and
a first-generation college student. Kamille was formally diagnosed with Bulimia and Orthorexia,
though she has a childhood history of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD). Note that OCD
was not taken into consideration as there was not an updated diagnosis or any current treatments.
As a result of her disabilities, symptoms include panic attacks and generalized anxiety. Besides a
single dorm room for her peanut allergy, Kamille does not receive formal accommodations for
her disabilities due to her unawareness of qualifications.
Information on the five participants is represented in the below figure:
Participant Background Year Disability Receiving full
accommodations?
Accommodations
Jackie
(She/hers/hers)
Person of
color
Latinx
Second Hearing loss No Preferential
seating
Captions on
videos
Arjun
(He/him/his)
Person of
color
Indian-
American
First Obsessive-
Compulsive
Disorder
Dysgraphia
No None

BELONGINGNESS OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 37

Katie
(She/her/hers)
Person of
color
Chinese
LGBTQ+
Second Hearing loss
Attention-
Deficit
Disorder
Yes Real-Time
Captioning
Extra time on
exams
Carlos
(They/them/their)
White
Latinx
LGBTQ+
Third Schizophrenia
Clinical
Depression
Anxiety
Disorder
Yes Extra time on
exams
Extended
deadlines
Extra absences
Kamille
(She/her/hers)
White
Latinx
First Bulimia
Orthorexia
Anxiety
Disorder
No Single dorm room
Figure 2. Meet the Participants. Source: Research data.
Now that there has been an introduction of the participants, there can be a presentation of the
findings. During the semi-structured interviews, participants with disabilities discussed (1) their
disability history and narrative, (2) their experiences with the three disability belonging factors—
self-advocacy, social relationships, and academic mastery—and (3) other factors they felt were
notable to their belonging development. When considering the findings and connections between
the three disability belonging factors, the three observed themes are as followed:
1. Disability stigma played a role in disability belongingness.
2. On-campus involvement impacted disability belonging development.
3. Cultural identities influenced disability belongingness.
Theme 1: Disability stigma played a role in disability belongingness
A reoccurring theme was the “judgment” of disability from peers and professors, also
described as disability stigma. Consequently, the judgment by others decreased academic
confidence and negatively impacted social relationships—two components of the disability
belonging model—thus, affecting the overall belongingness for participants with disabilities.
Though not a major theme within this section, self-advocacy was also present when examining

BELONGINGNESS OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 38

how disability stigma effected social relationships. As a result of disability stigma, participants
with disabilities were forced to avoid the disclosure of their disability and create social/academic
coping strategies.
Participants explained that when their disability affected them in the classroom, they
experienced disability stigma from their peers. For instance, Jackie explained that after a
negative interaction in the classroom, she avoided speaking to her classmates all together:
Last semester, I was in class and we were doing quizzes. My professor said there was a
certain answer he was looking for, but I wasn’t sure what the answer was. So, I raised my
hand and asked if my answer acceptable. He turned to me and said, “Are you serious?”
and everyone in the class laughed. I don’t know why they laughed. It was a pretty big
lecture hall, and everyone was laughing. It was so embarrassing, and I wanted to drop the
class after that. Instead I just didn’t talk [to anyone] in the class for the rest of the
semester…It is the fear of mishearing someone or the fear of asking someone to repeat
themselves and them thinking I wasn’t paying attention.
Jackie explained that she did not think her classmates were fully aware of her disability and the
limitations her deafness can cause, stating that “it felt so frustrating.” Consequently, participants
such as Jackie were less likely to participate during lectures in fear of disability stigma, which
negatively impacted academic mastery because class participation is a universal component of
learning. More so, the lack of class participation made it so that the participants were hindered
when engaging with their classmates, thus also affecting social relationships—another key
component of the disability belonging model.
Participants felt that due to disability stigma from their peers, it was difficult to self-
advocate for themselves and create social networks. For instance, participants felt “awkward”

BELONGINGNESS OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 39

and “out of place” when trying to disclose their disabilities to peers due to stigma and
stereotypes, thus making it difficult to build social networks in their respective programs. More
so, even when disability stigma was not inherently present, participants still felt that the fear of
stigma and negative perceptions of disability affected their belonging. For example, Carlos
recalled that when they tried to disclose their disability to their friends and classmates, they felt:
“paranoia makes me think everyone hates me…No one on campus knows that I have
Schizophrenia. Some of my friends know, but…only in the vague sense.” The reasoning was that
Carlos felt that their classmates and friends had negative perceptions of Schizophrenia due to
stereotypes of the disability’s nature. Carlos explained, “I’m sometimes afraid to disclose
information about my disability because I feel like people [on campus] might treat me
differently. I don’t want people to treat me like the classic Hollywood crazy person with
Schizophrenia.” Participants such as Carlos felt that negative perceptions associated with
disabilities would strain the ability to socialize with and self-advocate to others on campus, thus
impacting disability belonging.
When participants proactively self-advocated their disability and disability symptoms to
their peers, disability stigma was still prevalent and impeded on disability belonging
development. Jackie said that she always tried to tell her friends and classmates that she has a
hearing disability “whenever [she] has a chance.” Jackie explained, though:
My friends know [that I have a disability] and they know to sit at the right side of
me…My friends will say, “Oh my god, you’re so annoying because you’re deaf.” I know
they mean it as a joke, because they have to repeat themselves a couple times, but I don’t
like to be different. It’s nothing I can control…It makes me wish I didn’t tell them
sometimes about [my disability].

BELONGINGNESS OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 40

It was common for participants to use coping strategies such as joking about disability to help
alleviate the “awkwardness” of disability-related conversations with friends, but doing so made
participants feel “different” and “out of place” because disability stigma was still prevalent. For
example, Arjun said that despite varying social strategies such as joking about disability or
mentioning disability in passing, he noted that bringing up his “mental illness” made his friends
“a little thrown off.”
Still, participants felt that even though their peers judged them for their disabilities,
disclosing symptoms helped provide context as peers can be “understanding” and exhibit
“positive awareness.” Arjun explained that though his disability “makes people look at [him]
differently,” friends and classmates will still often assist him during his episodes:
If I'm having a hard time or I'm freaking out about something, [my friends and
classmates] try and calm me down… They'll understand that it's not just something
random. It’s because I have a mental illness and I appreciate that a lot.
So despite the existence of disability stigma—as seen in people treating Arjun and Katie
differently— participants found that the positive interactions created by the disclosure of
disabilities sometimes outweighed the negative effects of disability stigma.
Disability stigma from professors also negatively impacted belongingness for participants
with disabilities. In terms of faculty interactions, Katie recalled in her interview:
I ask a lot of questions in class—sometimes because I miss a piece of information—and
most of my professors are fine with it, but other professors get frustrated and say, “I just
went over that!” It makes me feel bad because I know that other students are like, “Why
is she asking this in class?” or “Why is she asking such a dumb question?” and I feel like
I get judgment.

BELONGINGNESS OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 41

Professors expressed frustration with participants due to disability and learning differences in the
classroom, which made participants feel “bad” and like they do not belong in the classroom.
Consequently, the subtle frustration expressed by professors made participants like Katie feel
judged by their classmates as well, further negatively impacting belonging. Katie further
explained:
I’ve had professors that—they didn’t say it out loud—but you could feel a viciousness
towards you. They will ignore my disability and treat me weird. They don’t do it outright,
but they treat me differently…One professor had a change of attitude after he found out
about my disability…I was asking him all these questions and he acted unwilling to
answer them compared to everyone else’s questions. He didn’t treat me like a normal
person.
Participants such as Katie discovered that subtle interactions of disability stigma evolved from
judgment to mistreatment and prejudice. As a result, participants felt they were no longer valued
by their academic community—a major component of student belonging. More so, participants
with disabilities were not treated as equals in the classroom, thus affecting academic mastery and
overall disability belonging.
When further considering disability stigma, negative interactions with professors often
caused issues of accommodation and course enrollment for participants. Kamille explained that
one professor was “toxic” to her when she tried to self-advocate and disclose information about
her disability symptoms:
My professor told me one time, “We all have anxiety.” She literally told me, “We all
have anxiety and you need to just handle it better.” I was like, “I don’t think that’s how
mental illness works.” My professor didn’t let me leave the class during my panic attack

BELONGINGNESS OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 42

at the second week of school and after that incident, I was kind of targeted by her. I tried
to get out of the class, but I could not.
In these blatant interactions of stigma, professors such as Kamille’s would not accept disability
symptoms and diagnoses because of their own negative perceptions of disability and personal
biases. As a result of disability stigma, professors would become unwilling to accommodate or
listen to the needs of participants, which in turn, negatively affected the academic mastery of
participants with disabilities, as they were no longer gaining equal access to college.
Furthermore, when professors complicated accommodations or were unwilling to
accommodate participants with disabilities, it was common for participants to consider dropping
or withdrawing from their courses because they believed the professors were stigmatizing them.
For example, Jackie recalled, “Sometimes it is easy [to get accommodations], but one time I
dropped a class because I couldn’t get any accommodations [from my professor].” In another
situation, Kamille failed a course because her professors were not accommodating of her
disability, stating that the professor was “out to get [her].” In these extreme cases of disability
stigma, four out of five participants sought to drop their courses—thus also affecting their
academic mastery as they had fallen behind in their degree programs.
As a result of the “judgment,” or disability stigma, participants had issues of confidence
and performance in the classroom, forcing them to create coping strategies to maintain positive
levels of academic mastery. When disability stigma affected academic mastery, coping strategies
included asking classmates for additional notes, utilizing supplemental online resources, and
attending additional office hours. The most common coping strategy for participants was to study
more often than their able-bodied peers because participants felt like they had to make up for

BELONGINGNESS OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 43

their “disadvantages” in the classroom. For instance, Carlos explained that when considering
disability and their confidence:
I am less confident because I don’t finish the exam at the same time as everyone else or
I’m not the first one to raise my hand when the professor asks a question because I might
need a few extra seconds to process the question. I think it's affected my confidence a
little bit. But, my studying is still giving me confidence.
By studying more than their able-bodied peers, participants felt that they were more likely to
avoid disability stigma and perform better in the classroom, thus improving their belonging.
More so, participants found that when the extra studying improved their grades, they gained
more “credibility from others” in the academic community, which in turn made them felt they
belonged in their academic program. However, the extra work the participants had to perform,
such as extra studying, created negative feelings towards their peers, as recalled by Jackie:
I feel like I’m always behind. I have to study more than my peers because of my
disability...It’s because I can’t understand anything because of my hearing. In my physics
class...My friend is on her phone the entire class and still understands the material better
than me, which makes me upset. It’s frustrating honestly, I’m not going to a lie. I can
never write down all of the lecture because I can’t hear it. It makes me—not exactly
resentful—I get jealous, that other people don’t have to do [as much as me]. I’m jealous
of my friends for being normal.
So despite the implementation of coping strategies such as extra studying, participants still
experienced disability stigma as they felt unequal to their peers, therefore participants struggled
with belongingness.

BELONGINGNESS OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 44

Theme 2: On-campus involvement impacted disability belonging development
All five participants with disabilities concurred that on-campus involvement helped them
feel connected to the college community and was a critical component to their disability
belongingness. This unanimous agreement centered around how involvement assisted
participants with building peer networks, gave participants a sense of purpose on the campus,
and helped participants as they created coping strategies for disability symptoms. The first two
topics directly and positively affected sense of belonging, whereas the latter topic had more of an
indirect role in disability belonging development. The final portion of this section discussed the
importance of disability support and inclusion for on-campus opportunities, as participants felt
that better disability support promoted disability belonging development.
On-campus involvement assisted participants with disabilities as they built their peer
networks—a component of social relationships in the disability belonging model—thus,
involvement played a role in how participants with disabilities made sense of their belonging.
Common extracurricular activities included engaging with culture centers, campus organizations,
bridge programs, sports teams, and clubs. For instance, Katie found that joining her sports team
helped her better connect with the campus, where she stated, “Extracurricular [activities] gave
me connections and helped me build my network. I do [sports] and met my best friend
there…Sports has helped me a lot with my sense of belonging.”
Notably, on-campus involvement assisted participants in meeting college students of
similar interests and backgrounds, allowing participants to feel like they better belonged on the
campus. For example, Kamille believed that as a first-generation college student, she would have
a difficult time meeting other students similar to herself. However, Kamille’s involvement in a
summer bridge program for first-generation students made her feel like she belonged on campus
because she had a peer network. “I have a lot of friends from [my bridge program] and they're

BELONGINGNESS OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 45

similar to me, so that helps me feel connected.” Therefore, on-campus involvement allowed for
participants to meet others and build their networks—again, improving sense of belonging as
social relationships is a critical component.
In some instances, participants expressed that connecting with their classmates was
difficult due to classroom barriers and disability stigma, causing issues of on-campus belonging.
When participants struggled to socialize with their classmates, on-campus involvement served as
an alternative way for participants to meet new people and make more friends. For example,
Jackie reflected, “I met one of my roommates and closest friends through my volunteer
experience [at my university’s culture center].” Additionally, Carlos explained:
I don't usually make friends in class. If I didn't spend time outside of class getting to
know people and doing things together with people I have things in common with, I don't
think I would've met anyone…Without social relationships, I don't believe you can heal
or be a part of the campus…So clubs are really important to me.
Participants felt that the ability to engage with the college campus outside of their respective
academic programs assisted them as they made “lifelong” friends. More so, extracurricular
activities gave participants with disabilities a “special connection” to others on campus, which
made them experience a stronger sense of belonging.
Not only did involvement allow for network building, but on-campus opportunities also
gave participants with disabilities fulfillment and a “sense of purpose” and value on the college
campus, thus affecting belonging development. For example, Arjun said that one semester he felt
“unfulfilled” due to his lack of involvement in extracurricular activities:
I felt like everything I did was an engineering-related thing because that’s what I’m
majoring in…My classes were engineering, all of my clubs were engineering. I just

BELONGINGNESS OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 46

thought that I'm doing the same thing over and over again…I've been like trying to do
things outside of engineering. I’m a musician. I’m an actor. I love doing those things
because it helps me connect…I didn't realize how much I missed [art and music]. It gives
me a sense of purpose at [my college].
By engaging in clubs and sports, participants such as Arjun were able to experience a sense of
purpose on their campus and therefore, develop a stronger connection with the on-campus
community. Furthermore, Katie explained that her leadership roles in sports and culture-centric
organizations gave her a sense of purpose on the campus, stating that “leadership helps [her] give
back to the [college] community.” Belonging requires collegians to feel valued by their
community; therefore, by gaining a sense of purpose through extracurricular activities,
participants with disabilities developed healthier sense of belonging.
Additionally, participants felt that extracurricular activities assisted them in cultivating
coping strategies for their disabilities and disability symptoms. For example, Katie explained that
on-campus involvement helped her as she navigated her recently diagnosed ADD, where she
stated, “Because of my ADD, I can never sit still, so I do a lot of extracurricular [activities]
because it sets structure in my life...It helped me create a lot of connections and manage my
ADD at the same time…because I struggle with time management.” Similarly, Arjun explained
that by being involved in theater, he was able to develop coping strategies for his psychiatric and
learning disabilities, such as learning how to stay calm on stage and improving his ability to
transcribe lines from his play. By developing coping strategies for disability symptoms,
participants felt that disability was easier to manage in college and therefore, they had more time
to spend on making friends and studying for class. Therefore, in the case of disability coping

BELONGINGNESS OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 47

strategies, extracurricular activities indirectly and positively affected disability belonging
development.
As a final portion of the second theme, participants noted that students with disabilities
needed better support in the matter of on-campus opportunities. Meaning, participants believed
that their college institution lacked disability inclusion. The reasoning was that on-campus
opportunities were either (1) not accessible to all students with disabilities or (2) the community
with disabilities was “too closed off.” For the first, Katie explained that “none of the centers on
campus are intersectional. If you belong to multiple organizations, you realize there is no
collaboration...but disability needs collaboration and intersectionality…We need more support”
Kamille agreed in her interview, where she explained that “extracurricular [activities] are not
always accessible.” Given that involvement was highlighted in this study to have a role in
disability belonging, participants felt that the existence of inaccessible on-campus opportunities
made them feel that they belonged less to the campus community.
For the second point, all five participants discussed that they did not interact with other
people with disabilities on a regular basis. Arjun reflected, “We're a closed off community...You
know the deal. I don't really meet many people with other disabilities—Just sometimes, they're
not pretty apparent.” Katie explained that she wished she knew more people with hearing
disability, where she stated, “[My university] is very cliquey, so it’s hard to meet others like
me...there is not bridge between communities here.” Participants agreed in separate interviews
that if they met more classmates and peers with disabilities, they would feel like they better
belonged in their program, where Katie said, “It would be nice to meet others with disabilities
[like me].”

BELONGINGNESS OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 48

Theme 3: Cultural Identities influenced disability belongingness.
Cultural identities had a powerful effect on how participants made sense of their
belonging as collegians with disabilities. Given that the disability identity is deemed to be
holistic, participants with disabilities were asked to consider their disability identity in junction
with other personal/social identities. Coincidentally, all five participants of the study are of
culturally diverse backgrounds; three participants lived outside the United States prior to entering
the American higher educational system and two participants were first-generation Americans.
As so, participants with disabilities described their cultural identities as having a “complex”
relationship with disability, making it so that they had a “unique” personal identity and college
experience. Cultural identities influenced disability belonging development, as participants felt
that culture played a role in how they perceived academic accommodations, culture impacted
their ability to receive accommodations, and culture influenced their overall disability identity.
Cultural backgrounds effected how participants with disabilities perceived academic
accommodations in higher education. Participants of varying cultural backgrounds believed that
their culture had negative attitudes towards accommodations, stating that academic assistance for
those with disabilities was considered “cheating” and “unfair” to others. Carlos explained that
their Southern American background affected their perception of accommodations:
There was no concept of accommodations anywhere in my country. Accommodations are
considered cheating and not very good. Like, it’s the person’s fault if they need help...I
feel guilt and shame now whenever I get accommodations.
Participants felt the need and urge to reject accommodations, as all five participants expressed
that they felt “guilt” when they requested or used accommodations. Jackie further elaborated that
she did not use all of her accommodations because during her experiences in Latinx culture, the
use of accommodations meant that “something [was] wrong with the person…it’s embarrassing.”

BELONGINGNESS OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 49

As a repercussion, participants were placed at a disadvantage in the classroom if they avoided
using accommodations due to “shameful” feelings, thus hindering academic mastery.
Furthermore, Carlos explained that disability services “triggered” them because a staff
member questioned their disability and need for accommodations, where Carlos explained:
One [Disability Services staff member] there told me, “Well, you have straight A’s, you
don’t need any of these accommodations.” I didn’t say this, but I thought—well, I’m
Schizophrenic, not stupid. I know what I need.
Like other participants, Carlos believed that their interaction with disability services caused
“doubt” and made them “second-guess” themselves. The root cause, according to participants,
was that in the participants’ own culture, disability and accommodations were both “looked
down on by everyone.” Therefore, even when accommodations were requested and used, “guilt”
from cultural perceptions impacted belonging as participants became “self-conscious” of their
disabilities.
Additionally, negative cultural perceptions of disability made it so that participants with
disabilities faced barriers of obtaining accommodations in the American higher educational
system. In order to receive accommodations from disability services, collegians are required to
produce medical documentation of their disability diagnosis and history. However, participants
with disabilities found that their cultural backgrounds created difficulties when obtaining
accommodations due to documentation complications. Arjun explained, “Speaking about and
having that mental illness conversation doesn't really exist [in my culture]—even for those who
are in the medical field.” As a result, Arjun struggled to gain a diagnosis for his psychiatric and
learning disabilities. Given that documentation of diagnoses is necessary for accomadations,
participants with disabilities—especially those who are from abroad—struggled to gain equal

BELONGINGNESS OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 50

access in higher education. Carlos said that despite persistent symptoms throughout their
childhood and high school career, they were not formally diagnosed with their psychiatric
disabilities until they entered the United States. Carlos explained that “there is a lot more
treatment options [in America]” and “disability is considered bad where [they are] from, so
[they] didn’t see anyone.” As a result of the late diagnoses, participants such as Carlos and Arjun
only recently requested and/or obtained academic accommodations. The struggle to obtain
documentation challenged participants with disabilities in their self-advocacy skills, thus placing
extra burdens on the participants as they made sense of their belonging. From here, the lack of
accommodations negatively impacted academic mastery, thus also negatively impacting
disability belonging.
Participants also felt that their cultural background influenced their personal identities,
thus impacting their belonging and how they emotionally connected to the college community.
For example, participants felt like “outsiders” in their academic and cultural communities when
they openly used disability assistance in college. In participants’ experiences, disability was a
“taboo” subject in their academic and cultural communities. Katie explained, “Disability is a bad
thing in China, so I was taught to never disclose it to anyone...I was convinced that something
was wrong with me.” When considering his identity, Arjun explained that being disabled and
Indian made him “sometimes feel like an outsider” due to the “taboo” nature of disability. As a
result, culture played a role in how participants perceived themselves in their cultural and
academic communities.
However, participants felt they experienced a “unique” personal identity and college
experience, which to them, was “not always a bad thing.” Katie believed that her identity as a
“gay Chinese student with ADD” made her disability experience unique on the college campus:

BELONGINGNESS OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 51

I’m very big on advocacy for minorities because I belong to so many minority groups—
being Chinese, gay, and disabled....My disability is part of me and it doesn’t always
define who I am...Because I belong to so many groups I understand that it is complex.
Katie, like the other participants with disabilities, found that her complex, intersectional identity
affected how she viewed herself and her community. According to participants such as Katie,
these complex self-perceptions of identity affected how they made sense of her belonging;
“Sometimes for the worse, sometimes for the best.” Furthermore, participants felt that their
“unique” identities affected how they connected to the campus. Arjun explained that “being
Indian and mentally ill are two main senses of [my] identity…and both of these identities define
how I connect with [my campus].”

BELONGINGNESS OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 52

Chapter Five: Discussion and Implications
The purpose of the study was to further current understanding on the belongingness of
students with disabilities in postsecondary contexts. In doing so, current higher educational
leaders and practitioners can better understand how to serve the growing population with
disabilities. Within the study, the connections between the three disability belonging factors—
self-advocacy, social relationships, and mastery—were explored and from there, other potential
factors of belonging were considered (Vaccaro et al., 2015; Vaccaro & Newman, 2016). The
results of the study are significant, as it offers an insight on experiences that occur during
disability belonging development.
The highlights of the study include the importance of disability stigma, on-campus
involvement, and cultural identities. Disability stigma is significant as it offers insight on ways
professionals and practioners can help alleviate academic and social barriers in higher education
(Baker et al., 2012; Bialka et al., 2017; Hong, 2015). Additionally, the importance of on-campus
involvement is significant, as it affirms and signifies the research by Strayhorn (2012) and the
model by Vaccaro and Newman (2016), which stated that on-campus involvement played a role
in how minorities develop belonging. Lastly, the emphasis on culture and disability is significant,
as the theme proposes that Vaccaro et al.’s (2015) model may have some limitations because it
does not explicitly address nontraditional and culturally diverse students with disabilities in the
American higher education system.
Discussion
The connection between the three disability belonging factors was manifested into three
separate, but simultaneously experienced themes: (1) Disability stigma played a role in disability
belongingness, (2) On-campus involvement impacted disability belonging development, and (3)

BELONGINGNESS OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 53

Cultural identities influenced disability belongingness. Though each theme included varying
aspects of the disability belonging factors, findings implied that there are other external factors
not necessarily addressed within the disability belonging model, including the significance of
disability stigma and ableism, on-campus involvement, and cultural identities. Overall though,
findings indicated that the disability belonging mode is complex, interwoven, and cyclical—as
intended by Vaccaro et al. (2015).
Disability Stigma. Ableism is defined as discrimination in favor of able-bodied
individuals. Stigmatizing and stereotyping disability led to ableism, as people with disabilities
are no longer considered equals (Vance et al., 2014). A reoccurring theme was the “fear” of
“judgment” from others, which decreased academic performance, confidence, and social
abilities—thus negatively impacting disability belonging. It was common for participants to
avoid disclosing their disability to others. This avoidance of disclosure is similar to current
literature, as it was found that students are hesitant to discuss their disability with classmates and
professors because they are afraid disability stigma (Banks & Hughes, 2013; Cox et al., 2017;
Denhart, 2008; Vance et al., 2014).
However, a study by Vaccaro et al., (2015) found that if classmates acknowledge
disability within the academic community, then students with disabilities believed that disability
stigma had less of an effect on academic mastery and social relationships. Within my study,
participants felt that though the findings from Vaccaro et al. (2015) may be true, they continued
to conceal their disability identity when possible. Previous data showed that students with
disabilities tend to conceal their disability from classmates as to avoid disability stigma (Cox et
al., 2017; Denhart, 2008). Participants agreed, where they explained that they did not want to be
treated differently and instead, wanted to appear “normal” to their classmates. However, because

BELONGINGNESS OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 54

participants rarely disclosed their disabilities with their classmates, they never had the chance to
develop stronger academic confidence/performance and self-advocate to peers by disclosing
disability. Therefore, participants experienced a decrease of disability belongingness.
Disability stigma made it so that participants felt that they experienced “disadvantages”
in the classroom. Denhart (2008) found that it was common for students with disabilities to feel
an inequity in workloads compared to their able-bodied counterparts. Literature holds true for my
study, as my participants felt that they needed to develop academic coping strategies to make up
for academic inequities. From here, Troiano et al. (2010) discovered that students with
disabilities who use academic support centers and studied more often tended to have better
retention rates, therefore the coping strategies developed by my participants were effective and
impactful on belonging. Additionally, extra studying helped participants avoid disability stigma
as their academic accomplishments gave them credibility in their respective academic
communities. Again, the lived experiences of the participants is reflected in literature, where it
was found that students with disabilities believed disability stigma had less of an effect on their
success if their academic communities acknowledged their academic accomplishments (Vaccaro
et al., 2015).
In other, more extreme cases, participants sought to drop their classes because professors
were unwilling to accommodate participants or would not treat participants like a “normal”
people once disability was disclosed. Findings are related to past literature, which found that
faculty perceptions of disability can create academic barriers and dissuade students with
disabilities from attending particular courses (Evans et al., 2017; Hong, 2015). The experiences
of the five participants affirmed the study by Baker et al. (2012), where it was found that one-
third of students with disabilities felt that faculty would treat them differently after disclosing

BELONGINGNESS OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 55

disability. Lastly though, the results aligned with Carroll et al., (2016), who found that negative
signals—including discrimination of health impairments—can change students with disabilities’
academic expectations. As a result, participants felt the need to drop courses and therefore, felt
like they belonged less in the academic community.
Involvement. Scholars indicated that on-campus involvement was a crucial component
for student development, where Strayhorn (2012) emphasized that extracurricular activities
affected the levels of belongingness for minoritized collegians. All five participants agreed that
on-campus involvement helped them build a peer network and connect with their higher
education institution—thus, positively affecting their sense of belonging (Vaccaro & Newman,
2015). The disability belonging model does not explicitly signify involvement. However,
involvement was highlighted in the minortized belonging development model because students
with disabilities are given the chance to be their “authentic selves” (Vaccaro & Newman, 2016,
p.935). Participants agreed, where they found involvement gave them a sense of “purpose” and a
place to meet others similar to themselves. An additional study found that students with
disabilities who experienced “isolation” became fully “integrated” into the college campus when
they became involved in student organizations (Bialka, 2017, p.157). Again, participants felt that
when they were involved on campus, they no longer experienced loneliness that was associated
with marginalization. More so, literature supports the findings in my study because participants
with disabilities felt that involvement helped them emotionally connect to the college campus—a
critical component of belonging (Strayhorn, 2012). Participants went as far to say that without
extracurricular activities, they would “never make friends.”
In my study, however, an added dimension to involvement and belonging for students
with disabilities was found: Extracurricular activities assisted participants as they “managed”

BELONGINGNESS OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 56

their disabilities and disability symptoms. For example, one participant found that sports gave
her an avenue for treating her ADD symptoms. There is currently no literature immediately
addressing how coping strategies created by on-campus involvement has a positive effect on
disability belonging development.
Lastly though, participants believed that if they met other classmates with disabilities,
then they would feel better connected with and welcomed by their academic/college community.
However, all five participants struggled to meet others with disabilities similar to themselves
because the community with disabilities was “separated.” According to Evans et al., (2017), it is
not uncommon for those with disabilities to be unaware of one another because universities tend
to lack designated spaces for students with disabilities. Participants concurred, where the
population with disabilities was described to be a “closed off community” on the college campus
and that “none of the centers on campus are intersectional” with disability. In fact, the study by
Bialka (2017) supports the existence of a disability-centric student organization—an opportunity
which participants in my study expressed interest in.
Cultural Identities. When asked if participants felt that personal/social identities
affected disability belonging, participants highlighted the importance of the cultural identity and
how it was connected to their experiences as people with disabilities. Participants with
disabilities described their cultural identity as having a “complex” relationship with disability,
making it so that they had a “unique” personal identity. According to Patton et al. (2016),
disability identity development is holistic. Therefore, it is unsurprising that when participants
made sense of their belonging and considered how they emotionally connected to the
community, they took into consideration both their cultural and disability identities.

BELONGINGNESS OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 57

Participants felt that they did not deserve accommodations or had difficulty arranging
accommodations because of their culture. When receiving accommodations, participants felt
“shame” and “guilt” because their culture treated accommodations as “cheating.” Findings are
similar to Walker and Test (2011), who stated that if students were not given the chance to
develop self-advocacy strategies and/or a healthy perspective of disability, then they were less
likely to receive or be receptive of academic accommodations.
Furthermore, participants noted that it was difficult to gain a diagnosis because disability
was a neglected topic in their culture. Several participants did not receive a full diagnosis until
they entered the American higher education system because screenings were irregular in their
native culture or because their native culture rejected the notion of disability. Participant
experiences are reminiscent of Travers et al. (2013), who found that students with disabilities
were less likely to receive a diagnosis because their respective population was less likely to have
regular clinical screenings. Additionally, participants’ experience of underdiagnoses was related
to the literature by Evans et al., (2017), who found that racially and ethnically minoritized
students with disabilities tend to encounter more barriers and disparities in the diagnosis process.
Lastly, participants explained that their respective cultures’ attitude towards disability
affected their disability identity and how they made sense of their belonging. Disability was
viewed in their respective cultures as “a bad thing” and being a “taboo” subject. Therefore,
accepting academic accommodations or openly identifying as being disabled made participants
feel conflicted with their cultural identities. As a result, participants had to learn how to balance
varying cultural views of disability, which according to Awoniyi (2014), can affect belonging
development. In some cases, participants in my study who used the disability label within their
communities tended to be to treated differently. As a result, participants would avoid using the

BELONGINGNESS OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 58

disability label within and outside their cultural communities as to seem “normal,” which created
a public and private identity—an aspect of the disability moral model (McCoy et al., 2013).
Findings of my study are similar to Banks and Hughes (2013), who found that African
Americans with documented disabilities would avoid using the disability label in junction with
their racial identity because when doing so, professors and peers treated them differently.
Implications for Future Research
In the future, adjustments to the current disability belonging model (Vaccaro et al., 2015)
is necessary, as now there is a now better understanding on the connections between the three
disability belonging factors. For instance, it is clear that other mitigating factors, such as cultural
identity, play a significant role in the lives of the participants with disabilities. A solution would
be to merge Vaccaro and Newman’s (2016) belongingness model for minoritized students with
the Vaccaro et al. (2015) disability belonging model, as doing so would create an accurate
theoretical framework for culturally diverse students with disabilities. Additionally, it may be
wise to research the significance other aspects of Vaccaro and Newman’s (2016) model in
addition to involvement, such as the role of the campus and classroom environment on the sense
of belonging for students with disabilities.
From here, there needs to be an exploration on how the duality of the public versus
private identities connects to belonging, as suggested by Cox et al. (2017). Depending on the
social situation, participants ascribed to either the medical, social, or moral model of disability.
As so, it was observed in my study that the participants generated a separate but related public
and private identity. However, there is no research on how the interchange between the public
and private identities effect belonging. As seen in other minoritized populations (Strayhorn,
2012), it is possible that students with disabilities make sense of their belonging in different

BELONGINGNESS OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 59

ways, depending on the saliency of their own disability identity and their upbringing. Therefore,
it would be helpful to observe how varying and multiple disability identities play a role in the
development of belonging.
Within my study, participants noted that on-campus involvement assisted them as they
developed coping strategies to manage their disabilities and disability symptoms. Though
research exists on how extracurricular activities can assist students with disabilities in their
medical treatment—such the mental health benefits of exercise—there is no research that
explicitly addresses how the development of these coping strategies positively effects disability
belonging development in postsecondary contexts. Though my study showed that the
phenomenon existed, there is little evidence on how and why it occurs. Therefore, a more in-
depth study should explore the medical benefits of on-campus activities for collegians with
disabilities and how/why said benefits impact belonging.
Additionally, there should be an examination on how belongingness varies between men
and women with disabilities. The sample size for my study was too small, so I was unable to
draw conclusions regarding the development of belonging for varying gender identities.
However, previous research shows that men and women experience the accommodation process
and campus safety at different rates when compared to their able-bodied counterparts (Baldridge
& Swift, 2013; National Council on Disability, 2018). Therefore, a future study examining the
differences of belonging development would not only help professionals understand varying
gendered experiences, but also enhance our understanding of the disability belonging model.
Lastly, an exploration of the complexity between culture and how students with
disabilities make sense of their belonging should be conducted. The findings suggested that it
could be possible for culture to have compounding effect on the marginalization for racially and

BELONGINGNESS OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 60

ethnically diverse students with disabilities. As suggested by Awoniyi (2014), collegians with
disabilities that enter American higher education have to learn how to balance their native culture
with on-campus culture. It would be interesting to see how the balancing process affects
culturally diverse students with disabilities as the develop their belonging and try to fit into the
campus community.
Implications for Policy and Practice
First, higher educational institutions need to include mandatory disability competency
training for all faculty and staff members. During my study, participants expressed that faculty
and staff members were not compliant or understanding of academic accommodations.
Furthermore, participants described a change of attitude from faculty members who became
aware of disability. According to Evans et al. (2017), “research indicates that many faculty have
little knowledge about disabled students or disability-related regulations” (p.237). Therefore,
disability competency training will allow faculty members to understand accommodations, while
also making faculty members more comfortable when interacting disabled students.
In a similar fashion, college institutions should require mandatory cultural competency
training for all disability services staff members. Participants recalled that their cultural identities
oftentimes conflicted with their willingness to use academic accommodations. The conflict was
mainly caused by the fact that disability was viewed in their respective cultures as “a bad thing”
and was considered a heavily “taboo” subject. Additionally, participants sometimes struggled to
obtain the necessary documentation in order to receive accommodations because their native
culture lacked regular screenings or would not acknowledge disability in the same way as
American higher education. Therefore, from issues of disability stigma to underdiagnoses,
culturally diverse students with disabilities face additional and drastically different barriers than

BELONGINGNESS OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 61

their counterparts. Thus, disability service providers need to be culturally competent so that they
may fully meet the needs of culturally diverse students with disabilities.
From here, institutions need to formally establish relationships between faculty members
and disability services. Participants with disabilities constantly struggled with obtaining
accommodations from faculty members due to stigma and stereotypes. In a perfect world,
students would advocate for themselves in all situations. Unfortunately though, ableism is
embedded into the higher educational system. In extreme cases, such as when students drop their
courses due to the mistreatment by faculty members, intervention is necessary. A study by Scott,
Markle, Wessel, and Desmond (2016) suggested that purposeful partnerships between disability
services and faculty improves on-campus practice and enhances the experiences of students with
disabilities. Therefore, institutions need to continue the trend of promoting collaboration between
faculty and disability services if they seek to improve equality for collegians with disabilities.
Additionally, institutions need to increase the access of on-campus involvement for
students with disabilities, as participants in my study found the clubs and sports played a positive
role in their belonging. For example, student affairs can ensure that clubs and sports are
accessible to students or at the very least, a clear and streamlined accommodation process exists
for students with disabilities interested in pursuing on-campus opportunities. More so, it would
be beneficial to have a designated, physical space for students with disabilities to interact with
one another. Participants in my study expressed that though they wished they knew others with
disabilities similar to themselves, the community with disabilities is fractured. Evans et al.
(2017) explained that a physical space with staff members allows students with disabilities and
their allies a chance to have “peer education, support, and advocacy” (p. 446). For example,
Syracuse University has a Disability Culture Center, which “coordinates campus-wide social,

BELONGINGNESS OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 62

educational, and cultural activities on disability issues for students, faculty, staff, and community
members with and without disabilities” (Syracuse University, Disability Cultural Center, 2019,
para 1). Even small steps such as utilizing social media can help students with disabilities
connect with others similar to themselves and develop their disability identities (Miller, 2012).
More importantly, students with disabilities need to be given a voice in policies and
practices within the higher educational institution. Gabel and Miskovic (2014) stated that people
with disabilities are excluded in higher education and as a result, are silenced as an oppressed
group. As highlighted in Nothing About Us Without Us (Charlton, 1998), positive change cannot
occur unless the voices of people with disabilities are heard. Evans et al. (2017) wrote that to
create a just environment for collegians with disabilities, “We believe there are important roles
for nondisabled people [in decisions]…none should be made without serious consideration of the
input of people with a wide range of impairments and functional limitations” (pp. 441-442).
Creating a platform for students with disabilities will empower them. From there, can improve
their sense of belonging, as their experiences are considered by professionals and integrated into
policy. For example, progressive departments such as Purdue University’s Disability Resource
Center uses student advisory committees as a way to enable and empower students with
disabilities (Purdue University, Disability Resource Center, 2017).
Summative Conclusion
Through the use of semi-structured interviews, my qualitative study explored the
connections between the three disability belonging factors—self-advocacy, social relationships,
and mastery—and investigated other potential factors that participants with disabilities felt were
crucial to their disability belonging development. Three themes emerged that suggested that the
connections between the disability belonging factors are intertwined and complex, creating a

BELONGINGNESS OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 63

cyclical effect. Additionally, the themes highlighted the importance of disability stigma, on-
campus involvement, and cultural identities.
As previously suggested, future studies should examine potential adjustments to the
disability model, investigate how belonging connects to the public and private identities, seek to
understand why medically beneficial on-campus activities promote disability belonging, examine
gendered experiences in disability belonging, and explore how cultural identity impacts disability
belonging. From here, policies/practices would be greatly enhanced by mandatory disability
competency training for faculty members, mandatory cultural competency training for disability
services staff members, a strengthened partnership between faculty and disability services, an
increase of accessibility for on-campus opportunities, and the creation of designated platforms
for students with disabilities to be heard.
Ultimately, students with disabilities have a lot to offer to higher education institutions,
they just need to be given an equal chance. It is therefore crucial that universities and colleges
consider the belonging of students with disabilities, as belonging can help researchers and
practitioners better understand the disability experience in postsecondary contexts as to better
improve circumstances. For instance, institutions can create programs to combat disability
stigma, improve accessibility to on-campus opportunities, and become more aware of the
intersection between disability and culture through competency trainings. Though this study
helped further the understanding of collegians with disabilities, there is still room for theoretical
growth, qualitative understanding, and additional practical knowledge. There is still so much to
discover on disability belonging in higher education and I am eager to see what future studies
hold.

BELONGINGNESS OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 64

References
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-336, § 2, 104 Stat. 328 (1991).
Annamma, S., Connor, D., & Ferri, B. (2012). Dis/ability critical race studies (DisCrit):
theorizing at the intersections of race and dis/ability. Race Ethnicity and Education,
16(1), 1-31.
Awoniyi, B. (2014). Engaging international students with disabilities. In Vance, Lipsitz, & Parks
(Eds), Beyond the Americans with Disabilities Act: Inclusive policy and practice for
higher education (pp. 171-177). Washington, DC: NASPA-Student Affairs
Administrators in Higher Education.
Baker, K., Boland, K., & Nowik, C. (2012) Survey of faculty and student perceptions of persons
with disabilities. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 25(4), 309-329.
Baldridge, D. C., & Smith, M. L. (2013). Withholding requests from disability accommodation:
The role of individual differences and disability attributes. Journal of Postsecondary
Education and Disability, 25(4), 309-329.
Banks, J., & Hughes, M. (2013). Double Consciousness: Postsecondary Experiences of African
American Males with Disabilities. The Journal of Negro Education, 82(4), 368–381.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal
attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497-529.
Bell, C. (2017). Is Disability Studies Actually White Disability Studies?. In Davis (Ed.) The
Disability Studies Reader (pp. 195-203). New York, NY: Routledge.
Bialka, Morro, Brown, & Hannah (2017). Breaking barriers and building bridges: Understanding
how a student organization attends to social integration of college students with disabilities.
Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 30(2), 157-172.
Blanchett, W. J. (2006). Disproportionate representation of African American students in special

BELONGINGNESS OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 65

education: Acknowledging the role of white privilege and racism. Educational Researcher,
35(6), 24-28.
Carroll, J., Muller, C., & Pattison, E. (2016). Cooling Out Undergraduates with Health
Impairments: The Freshman Experience. The Journal of Higher Education, 87(6), 771–
800. doi:10.1080/00221546.2016.11780887
Charlon (1998). Nothing About Us Without Us: Disability Oppression and Empowerment. Los
Angeles: The Regents of the University of California.
Clandinin, D.J. & Connelly, F.M. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative
research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
Cox, B., Thompson, K., Anderson, A., Mintz, A., Locks, T., Morgan, L., Edelstein, J., Wolz, A.
(2017). College Experiences for Students With Autism Spectrum Disorder: Personal
Identity, Public Disclosure, and Institutional Support. Journal of College Student
Development, 58(1), 71-87.
Couser, G.T. (2017). Disability, Life Narrative, and Representation. In Davis (Ed.) The
Disability Studies Reader (pp. 450-453). New York, NY: Routledge.
Davis, L. J. (2018). Beginning with Disability: A Primer. New York, NY: Routledge.
Denhart, H. (2008). Deconstructing Barriers: Perceptions of Students Labeled With Learning
Disabilities in Higher Education. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41(6), 483-97.
Dunbar Jr, C., Rodriguez, D., & Parker, L. (2003). Race, subjective and the interview process.
The Inside Interviewing: New Lenses, New Concerns, 111-130.
Evans, N., Broido, E., Brown, K., & Wilke A. (2017). Disability in Higher Education: A Social
Justice Approach. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Fleming, A., Oertle, K., Plotner, A., & Hakun, J. (2017). Influence of Social Factors on Student

BELONGINGNESS OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 66

Satisfaction Among College Students With Disabilities. Journal of College Student
Development, 58(2), 215-228.
Gabel, S., & Miskovic, M. (2014). Discourse and the containment of disability in higher
education: An institutional analysis. Disability & Society, 1-14.
Greytek, E. A., Kosciw, J. G., & Diaz E. M. (2009). Harsh realities, The experiences of
transgender youth in our nation’s schools. New York, NY: GLSEN.
Harbour, W. & Greenberg, D. (2017). Campus climate and students with disabilities. NCCSD
Research Brief, 1(2), 1-22.
Hernandez, P., Schultz, P., Estrada, M. Woodcock, A. & Chance, R. (2013). Sustaining Optimal
Motivation: A Longitudinal Analysis of Interventions to Broaden Participation of
Underrepresented Students in STEM. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(1), 89-
107.
Hong, B. (2015). Qualitative Analysis of the Barriers College Students with Disabilities
Experience in Higher Education. Journal of College Student Development, 56(3), 209-
226.
Hurtado, S., & Carter, D. (1997). Effects of College Transition and Perceptions
of the Campus Racial Climate on Latino Students' Sense of Belonging. Sociology of
Education, 70(4), 324-45.
Jenson, Ronda J., Petri, Alexis N., Day, Arden D., Truman, Kevin Z., & Duffy, Kate. (2011).
Perceptions of Self-Efficacy among STEM Students with Disabilities. Journal of
Postsecondary Education and Disability, 24(4), 269-283.
Johnson, D., Soldner, M., Leonard, J., Alvarez, P., Inkelas, K., Rowan-Kenyon, H., &
Longerbeam, S. (2007). Examining Sense of Belonging Among First-Year

BELONGINGNESS OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 67

Undergraduates From Different Racial/Ethnic Groups. Journal of College Student
Development, 48(5), 525-542.
McCoy, Owens, Dickenson, & Walker (2013). Disability Accommodation in Higher Education:
An International Perspective. VISTAS Online. Retrieved from
https://www.counseling.org/docs/default-source/vistas/disability-accommodation-in-high
er-education---an-international-perspective.pdf?sfvrsn=10
Miller, R. (2017). "My Voice Is Definitely Strongest in Online Communities": Students Using
Social Media for Queer and Disability Identity-Making. Journal of College Student
Development, 58(4), 509-525.
National Council on Disability (2018). Not on the Radar: Sexual Assault of College Students
with Disabilities. Washington, DC: NCD.
Newman, L., Wagner, M., Cameto, R., Knokey, A., & Shaver, D. (2012). Comparisons across
time of the outcomes of youth with disabilities up to 4 years after high school: A report of
findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2). Menlo Park, CA:
SRI International. (NCSER Report No. 2010-3008).
Patton, L., Renn, K., Guido, F., & Quaye, S. (2016). Student development in college: Theory,
research, and practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Peña, E. (2014). Marginalization of published scholarship on students with disabilities in
higher education journals. Journal Of College Student Development, 55(1), 30-40.
Purdue University, Disability Resource Center (2017). Student advisory committee promotes
access, inclusion in tandem with March disability awareness month events. Retrieved:
https://www.purdue.edu/drc/news/sac.html
Saldaña, J. & Omasta, M. (2018). Qualitative research: Analyzing life. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

BELONGINGNESS OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 68

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.
Scott, Markle, Wessel, and Desmond (2016). Disability Services Partnerships with faculty
members. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 29(3), 215-220.
Shakespeare, T. (2017). The social model of disability. In Davis (Ed.) The Disability Studies
Reader (pp. 195-203). New York, NY: Routledge.
Strayhorn, T. L. (2012). College students’ sense of belonging: A key to educational success for
all students. New York, NY: Routledge.
Summers, J. J., & Svinicki, M. D. (2007). Investigating classroom community in higher
education. Learning and Individual Differences, 17, 55-67.
Syracuse University, Disability Cultural Center (2019). About Us. Retrieved:
http://sudcc.syr.edu/about-us/index.html
Troiano, P., Liefeld, J., & Trachtenberg, J. (2010). Academic support and college success for
postsecondary students with learning disabilities. Journal of College Reading and
Learning, 40(2), 35–44.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2012, July 25). Nearly 1 in 5 People Have a Disability in the U.S., Census
Bureau Reports (Report No. CB12-134). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2016). Digest of
Education Statistics, 2015 (2016-014). Retrieved from
https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=60.

BELONGINGNESS OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 69

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.
Vaccaro, A. & Newman, B. (2016). Development of a Sense of Belonging for
Privileged and Minoritized Students: An Emergent Model. Journal of College Student
Development, 57(8), 925-942.
Vance, M., Lipitz, N., & Parks, K. (2014). Beyond the Americans with Disabilities Act: Inclusive
Policy and Practice for Higher Education. Washington, DC: National Association of
Student Personnel Administrators.
Walker, A., & Test, D. (2011). Using a Self-Advocacy Intervention on African American
College Students’ Ability to Request Academic Accommodations. Learning Disabilities
Research & Practice, 26(3), 134–144.
World Health Organization. (2018). Disability and Health. Retrieved from
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs352/en/.
Wyatt, L., Ung, T., Park, R., Kwon, S., & Trinh-Shevrin, C. (2015). Risk Factors of Suicide and
Depression among Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander Youth: A
Systematic Literature Review. Journal Of Health Care For The Poor And Underserved,
26(2), 191–237.
Zumbrunn, S., McKim, C., Buhs, E., & Hawley, L. (2014). Support, belonging, motivation, and
engagement in the college classroom: A mixed method study. Instructional Science,
42(5), 661-684.

BELONGINGNESS OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 70

Appendix A: Protocol Questions
Protocol Questions for Interview Part A
1. Background
a. What is your name and preferred pronouns?
b. Please specify your racial and ethnic identities.
c. Explain your institution and academic program.
2. Disability Background
a. If you are comfortable, can you describe to me your disabilities?
i. What accommodations do you currently receive?
b. How did you come to know your disabilities?
c. What was your experience with disability in education prior to attending college?
Protocol Questions for Interview Part B
1. Self-Advocacy
a. What are some strategies you use when trying to advocate for yourself to
professors and staff members?
b. Do you seek accommodations in advance, or only once you realize you need
them?
c. Has there been an event in the past that changed how you advocate for yourself?
2. Social Relationships
a. Do you feel like you are part of a community on campus?
b. Do you feel your disability has an effect on your relationships with them?
c. How do they make you feel connected or unconnected to others?
d. How do others perceive your disability?
e. Do you feel like people treat you differently because of your disability?
f. Do you interact with other people with disabilities? If so, how?
3. Academic Mastery
a. How well do you perform in school?
b. Do you think your grades have an effect on how well you fit into your program?
c. Do you feel your disability has an effect on your confidence in class?
d. Do you feel like you belong in your academic program?
Protocol Questions for Interview Part C
1. What other factors do you believe affect your sense of belonging?
2. Do you believe your personal identities affect your sense of belonging?
3. Do you feel like extracurriculars affect your sense of belonging?

BELONGINGNESS OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 71

Appendix B: Inquiry Flyer
Research Study Opportunity
Seeking Students with Disabilities

Hello, my name is Morgan Baker and I am a second year graduate student at the USC Rossier
School of Education. I’m currently working on my thesis and I’m in search of up to 4
participants. Based on your availability, the only requirements are that you be a person with
disabilities at [insert university name] and be willing to perform 1-3 interviews. Interviews will
take place January 7
th
– February 1
st
, though these dates are flexible. Participants will be provide
a gift card to the university bookstore.

If you are interested in participating, please email me at morgnaba@usc.edu. Thank you!

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study advances the current knowledge of belongingness for students with disabilities enrolled in four-year higher education institutions. Sense of belonging, or belongingness, is defined as an individual person feeling a connection with a specific community. Five participants of varying social/cultural backgrounds were interviewed as to explore the connections between the three factors that generate disability belonging: self-advocacy, social relationships, and academic mastery. Findings indicate that the connections are complex and cyclical, with three emerging themes: (1) Disability stigma played a role in disability belongingness, (2) On-campus involvement impacted disability belonging development, and (3) Cultural identities influenced disability belongingness. Though each theme included varying aspects of the disability belonging factors, findings suggest that there are other external influences not necessarily addressed within the disability belonging model, including the significance of disability stigma and ableism, on-campus involvement, and cultural identities. The study provides suggestions for future research, as well as policy and practice suggestions for higher education professionals.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Study abroad and the ethnoracial identity development of Latinx students

PDF

Pathway to inclusivity: a curriculum to transition students with disabilities into college

PDF

Visibly invisible: the experiences of black queer women on campus

PDF

Preparing student affairs administrators to support college students of color with mental health needs

PDF

A LatCrit analysis of the educational access, attainment, and life outcomes of Mexican origin people

PDF

Disability, race, and educational attainment - (re)leveling the playing field through best disability counseling practices in higher education: an executive dissertation

PDF

Early identification of a learning disability and its impact on success in postsecondary education

PDF

White faculty navigating difficult discussions: an ethnographic case study

PDF

Disability disclosure: the lived experiences of medical school students with disabilities

PDF

The arc of students with disabilities in California Community College through the lens of the disabled student programs and services coordinators

PDF

The relationship of college climate and policy to transgender student belonging

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

Understanding indigenous ʻike: the impact on sense of belonging and local identity on Hawaiʻi’s students

PDF

Families first: supporting first-generation college students’ families

PDF

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

PDF

Perceptions of inclusion: high school students diagnosed with learning disabilities and their level of self-efficacy

PDF

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

PDF

¿Dónde están todos los hombres latinos? A qualitative exploration of barriers to and enablers of participation in study abroad for first-generation Latino male college students

PDF

Preparing for the field of student affairs: White graduate students and the social justice and inclusion competency

PDF

Experiences of multiracial Asian American and Pacific Islander students at an Asian American Native American Pacific Islander-serving institution

Asset Metadata

Creator Baker, Morgan Leahy (author)

Core Title Nothing without us: understanding the belongingness of students with disabilities

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Master of Education

Degree Program Postsecondary Administration and Student Affairs

Publication Date 08/06/2019

Defense Date 08/05/2019

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

Tag belonging,belongingness,college,collegians with disabilities,cultural identity,Disability,disability identity,disability services,disability stigma,Higher education,identity development,involvement,OAI-PMH Harvest,self-advocacy,stigma,student belonging,students with disabilities

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Davis, Charles III (committee chair), Ahmadi, Shafiqa (committee member), Roth, Edward (committee member)

Creator Email momoxmia@gmail.com,morganba@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-207860

Unique identifier UC11662693

Identifier etd-BakerMorga-7750.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-207860 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-BakerMorga-7750.pdf

Dmrecord 207860

Document Type Thesis

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Baker, Morgan Leahy

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 a...

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