Constructing Knowledge-Makers: Representation of Individuals With Complex Communication Needs in Academic Conference Culture

• In Event: 66.063 - Typing and Talking Back: Challenging Prevailing Discourses of Research With Persons With Complex Communication Needs

Abstract

1. Objectives or purposes

The purpose of this paper is to highlight the tension between Disability Studies’ values and experiences of individuals with disabilities who participate in academic conferences. Our objectives are: 1) To identify the inherent ironies with regards to accessibility of academic spaces; 2) To privilege the voices of individuals with disabilities with experience in conference participation; and, 3) To start a conversation about alternative methods via which research in Disability Studies can be conducted to mitigate or eliminate potentially oppressive structures.

2. Perspective(s) or theoretical framework

Although social justice minded scholars espouse the value of epistemic diversity and encourage a plurality of knowledge and knowers, individuals with intellectual or neurological disabilities that manifest in complex communication challenges are actively de-valued in higher education spaces (Boxal& Dochery, 2004; Heshusius, 2004; Ashby & Causton-Theoharis, 2009; O’Donovan, 2010; Robertson, 2013). This exposes a tension in Disability Studies and the academy broadly of the “yet to be recognized” and not-yet-answered “call to heed the ways in which attitudes toward disability reflect and reinforce attitudes about knowledge” (O’Donovan 2010, p. 172.)

3. Methods, techniques, or modes of inquiry

Ashby (2011) highlights the contemporary tensions in research that seeks to find the “authentic voice” of persons whose competence has been historically questioned, noting that, “critical qualitative researchers should aim at working with the person to facilitate their construction and presentation of self” (accessed July 13, 2014: http://dsq-sds.org/article/view/1723/1771). Therefore, this paper employs critical qualitative interviews conducted with these tensions in mind.

4. Data sources, evidence, objects, or materials

Individuals with disabilities (specifically those with complex communication needs) have lent their time to projects that promote communication access for themselves and others. Participants from these ongoing projects who have also presented at academic conferences were solicited for interviews and the data gathered were analyzed (Bogdan & Biklen 2007).

5. Results and/or substantiated conclusions or warrants for arguments/point of view

Emergent themes of access, participation, and belonging arose in our data. Informants reflected on facets of academic conference culture such as; cumbersome calls for proposals, assumptions of “institutional affiliation” and corresponding feeling of “token” status for those without who lack one, stressful travel schedules, non-optimal sensory environments, and presentation formats incompatible with communicating via non-speaking means. Our data trouble typical academic conference culture and practice as the most authentic platform via which individuals with complex communication needs can showcase their true abilities.

6. Scientific or scholarly significance of the study or work

The historical struggle for participation in academic spaces still possesses a legitimizing potential for persons with complex communication needs. However if academic spaces maintain their structural status quo, tokenistic participation will continue. Therefore we contend that the field of Disability Studies needs to take the lead in constructing and supporting meaningful participation of diverse bodies and minds in academic spaces.

Authors

• Katherine Vroman, Syracuse University

• Jennifer Seybert, Networks For Training and Development - Valley Forge, PA