Qualitative Data Collection Methods for Exploring Students with Disabilities’ Experiences of School Disciplinary Practices

Part 1: Qualitative Interview Design

The phenomenological investigation of students with disabilities’ lived experiences regarding school disciplinary practices necessitates carefully constructed open-ended interview questions that facilitate deep exploration of participants’ subjective realities. The purpose of the three questions below, which tie in with the literature and phenomenological inquiry, is to ask people who have the experience to share their insights: Qualitative Data Collection Methods for Exploring Students with Disabilities’ Experiences of School Disciplinary Practices.

Question 1: “Can you describe a specific time when you experienced school discipline and walk me through what that experience was like for you from beginning to end?”

This core question sets the phenomenological focus by asking how participants reconstruct their lived experiences. As van Manen (2014) states, phenomenological inquiry entails a return to the pre-reflective dimensions of experience—something this question allows for through narrative reconstruction. This question relates to the literature on disciplinary experiences. In other words, Skiba et al. (2011) show that understanding the subjective dimensions of these experiences is necessary for understanding their impact on education more broadly.

This question also speaks to the research interest as it narrows down to the experiential and not just the procedural side of disciplinary practices. Participants are provided freedom to develop their own narrative frameworks, while the open-ended nature allows for a rich discussion of the temporal structure of their experiences.

Question 2: “How did the disciplinary experience affect your sense of belonging and connection to your school community?”

This question reflects the relational and social dimensions of disciplinary experiences, which the academic literature identifies as particularly important for disabled students. According to Noltemeyer et al. (2015), exclusionary discipline practices change students’ relationships with institutions fundamentally. This is especially true for already vulnerable populations. As said by Van Manen (2014), the question is theoretically grounded in phenomenological notions of intersubjectivity and being with others.

Disciplinary experiences for students with disabilities, on top of their social interactions at school, can make it harder for them to feel like they belong. This inquiry dimension is crucial since it engages how the practices that produce a discipline are related to disability identity and social positioning in school settings, possibly revealing mechanisms through which the discipline reproduces educational marginalization.

Question 3: “What meanings or understanding did you make of the disciplinary experience in relation to your disability, and how has this shaped your view of yourself as a student?”

This last question looks at the meaning-making processes via the hermeneutic dimension of experience. According to Moustakas (1994), phenomenological inquiry must examine how people make sense of their experience and incorporate it into their sense of self and the world. Research shows that students with disabilities are vulnerable due to their disabilities and may be labeled negatively. Hence, they may find some experiences more intimidating or overwhelming (Sullivan et al., 2014).

The question recognizes that disability identity can intersect with student identity and that student experiences can be fundamentally reconfiguring of self. The emphasis on how individuals make meaning not only relates to phenomenological commitments to how things become meaningful for individuals within their lifeworlds but also relates to matters of concern regarding how practices across the discipline influence students’ academic self-efficacy and educational engagement with their studies.

Part 2: Triangulation through Reflective Journaling

According to this phenomenological study, reflective journaling is an apt secondary data collection method to establish methodological triangulation and enhance the credibility of findings. Reflective journaling entails the participants’ recounting, over a certain period of time in writing of their thoughts, feelings and experiences on the phenomenon under study. This method adds to the in-depth interviews to reveal experiential aspects that may not come out through one interview alone.

The advantage of reflective journaling is its access to temporal differences between participant experiences and understandings. Reflective writing gives a chance to self-explore more deeply (Ortlipp, 2008). It may discover insights that are not available through speaking.

Journaling allows students with disabilities who undergo disciplinary practices to express their emotions and thoughts in private settings, which may allow for more genuine expressions than a public interview context. Journal writing also fits the various communication preferences and learning differences of the participants in the study, thereby enhancing method inclusiveness.

Nevertheless, there are different challenges in adopting reflective journaling in this context. Due to learning disability, participants may struggle with sustained writing. Alternatively, putting traumatic disciplinary experiences to paper may be overwhelming for participants.

Moreover, high levels of commitment to ff recruitment over long periods may lead to dropouts and missing data. Researchers need to think about how asking vulnerable participants to write about upsetting experiences could have ethical ramifications when there is no any help on standby.

Participants would be provided with structured prompts that would help guide reflection while permitting phenomenological openness in the data collection procedures for reflective journaling. Individuals signed up for the project will receive either a digital or paper journal with prompts such as “Did you speak to any school authority this week? What did you say?

How did it make you feel?” or “When in school this week did you feel most included or excluded? Tell us about it.” Over the six-week collection period after the interviews, researchers would message participants regularly with helpful nudge messages to keep them on track without being overly involved.

Sample Instrument – Weekly Reflection Prompts

Week 1: “Think about your experiences at school this week. Were there any moments that reminded you of past disciplinary experiences? How did you respond?”

Week 2: “Describe how you felt about yourself as a student this week. What specific events or interactions influenced these feelings?”

Week 3: “Write about any conversations you had with teachers, administrators, or peers about rules, expectations, or behavior. What did these interactions mean to you?”

Week 4: “Reflect on your sense of belonging at school this week. What made you feel more or less connected to your school community?”

Week 5: “Consider how your disability influences your daily school experiences. Were there particular moments this week when this felt especially significant?”

Week 6: “Looking back over these weeks of reflection, what patterns or themes do you notice in your experiences and responses?”

Through reflective journaling and phenomenological interviews, participants’ lived experiences are accessible with an appropriate level of methodological robustness, which is required for the investigation of disability, discipline and education.

References

Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. SAGE Publications.

Noltemeyer, A. L., Ward, R. M., & Mcloughlin, C. (2015). Relationship between school suspension and student outcomes: A meta-analysis. School Psychology Review, 44(2), 224-240. https://edsource.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Noltemeyer_Ward_2015_Meta-Analysis.pdf

Ortlipp, M. (2008). Keeping and using reflective journals in the qualitative research process. The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 695-705. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2008.1579

Skiba, R. J., Horner, R. H., Chung, C. G., Rausch, M. K., May, S. L., & Tobin, T. (2011). Race is not neutral: A national investigation of African American and Latino disproportionality in school discipline. School Psychology Review, 40(1), 85-107. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2011.12087730

Sullivan, A. L., Van Norman, E. R., & Klingbeil, D. A. (2014). Exclusionary discipline of students with disabilities: Student and school characteristics predicting suspension. Remedial and Special Education, 35(4), 199-210. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932513519825

van Manen, M. (2014). Phenomenology of practice: Meaning-giving methods in phenomenological research and writing. Left Coast Press.

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

We’ll write everything from scratch

Assignment 3: Determine Methods to Collect Qualitative Data for an Envisioned Study
Background
In this assignment, you will demonstrate your understanding of qualitative data collection methods, and the appropriate application of these methods as prescribed by qualitative research principles. This assignment is included at this point in the course because once you have a clearer understanding of qualitative research designs, you will be in a better position to appropriately select from the multiple qualitative data collection methods that are available and to formulate a triangulated data collection strategy.