Methodology

General Information:

The study applied a qualitative examination of the research questions through an overarching deliberative strategy utilizing document analysis and interview methodologies. The qualitative examination was selected for this study due to its critical role of illuminating the problematic and telling the story behind the formal experience in higher education institutions, as evidenced at the CCC when implementing accessibility standards required by law. Moreover, the use of a qualitative research form in interpretive policy analysis was necessary to identify factors that contribute or inhibit effective implementation of policies (Yanow, 2000), and to provide policymaking bodies with the rationale for inclusion of socially informed directives in their educational policies (Giroux, 1992).

Case Study:
• Qualitative methodologies: document analysis and interviews.
• Critical deliberative strategy : combining dialogue, analysis, reflection and understanding when studying and analyzing policy implementation challenges and attempting to illuminate needed changes. 

Researcher’s Role: A critical postmodernist cultural researcher
Conducting the study, I strived to keep a flexible approach and display a high degree of variation in investigating the social phenomenon and aspects related to the topic. Inspired by Freire (2006) and Tierney (1993), I saw my role in this study as that of a critical postmodernist cultural researcher. In that role, the concrete struggle that I examined in this study involved the difficulties experienced by students with disabilities when accessing Web material and information. My main task as a critical postmodernist cultural researcher was to introduce a multiperspectival dialogue into the current discourse involved in Web accessibility policy used in the CCC system, in order to identify the sources leading to both successful and challenging Web accessibility policy implementation, and to inform possible ways to make Web accessibility policy implementation in higher education more feasible. In doing so, I focused on evidence related to inclusive or ableist ideological forces that surfaced in my examination. 

Data Collection:
 Purposeful sampling was used to ensure the representation of the different perspectives associated with this study. The stakeholder groups whose representatives’ perspectives were critical to inform this study were: (a) government, represented by Web accessibility policymakers; (b) higher-education, represented by policy implementers at the state level (c) California Community Colleges (CCC), represented by policymakers and implementers at the CCC level; (d) e-content providers, represented by a source from a textbook publisher that markets e-learning material to higher education institutions; (e) ICT developers, represented by sources from companies that develop tools and courseware programs for use in the higher education market developers; (f) persons with disabilities; and (g) inclusiveness advocates, represented by a legal professional with a practice associated with facilitating digital access to persons with disabilities.

Extensive data were collected from the study documents and interviews in an attempt to provide an in-depth picture of all realities involved in the case. Data collection from the documents was, by and large, completed before the interviews were conducted so that evidence from the documents could be included in the interview questions. See Documents and Interviews sections to the right for more information. 

 

Selection Criteria:
Documents and interviewees included in the study were selected based on their ability to illuminate both historical and current considerations of the research questions. While many of the documents and some interviewees had been identified in the study preparation interviews, additional sources of information were selected to promote the study credibility and ensure unbiased representation of the related perspectives. Some of these additional documents and interviewees were selected (a) based on references included in the literature reviewed for this study, and (b) through my encounter with them during the 23rd Annual International Conference on Technology and Persons with Disabilities held in Los Angeles in March 2008.

Documents were selected for analysis based on their direct association with the research questions and their relation to Web accessibility in higher education as evidenced in the CCC system. To be includes in the study, the documents had to be either actual Web accessibility policies at the federal, state, or local level, or deliverables used to inform these policies.

Interviewee selection was guided by the multiple perspectives needed for this study to ensure representation of the different stakeholder groups associated with the making and implementation of Web accessibility policy in higher education. Selection criteria for interviewees required their close professional connection to the topic and ability to inform the research questions of this study with both overarching views and practical details as necessary. To qualify, interviewees had to hold positions that enabled them to inform this study’s research questions by providing their thorough perspective regarding Web accessibility in higher education and, when possible, specifically in the CCC system. When selecting a political stakeholder for an interview, for example, efforts were made to identify an informant that was either involved with the TEITAC committee at the time it worked on recommendations for the Access Board regarding updating Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act and Section 255 of the Telecommunications Act, or one who was familiar with the committee work through close association with Section 508 policymaking and its 1998 amendment. Similarly, efforts were made to identify stakeholders from the CCC system who were, or still are, closely associated with the implementation of the Distance Learning Access Guidelines, and those affiliated with e-content providers who are closely associated with the compliance of accessibility policy in the commercial e-learning industry. Following is a detailed description of the documents and the interviewees that provided the data for this study.