Expertise by experience has been a recognized and legitimate form of knowledge production in disability studies for several decades. However, the question of linking the dominant modes of knowledge production in the university to expertise by experience of people with disabilities has been limited to the fields of social work (Skilton, 2011; Wilken et al, 2020) and disability studies (Kearns & Carton, 2020). In a seminal essay, Vasilis Galis (2011) linked the potential of lived experience of disability to contribute and shape the ontological politics of disability to the normalization of ‘research in the wild’ (Calon & Rabeharisoa, 2003). Despite its rather stigmatizing denomination, ‘research in the wild’ is a form of researching outside of universities and research centers done in hybrid collectives that bring together researchers and  people who are directly concerned with the condition or situation under study. How relevant is such an approach to transforming the university towards a more inclusive academic space?  

In our exploration, we wish to reflect on the modalities and potentialities of producing knowledge in a hybrid form within the university in a context of dialogic learning. In this, we will reflect on a participatory action research process that brings together students with disabilities and researchers working from a social work, a special education and a policy disciplinary background on disability in higher education. 

The initial focus of the project has been on understanding how the Covid-19 pandemic was experienced by students with disabilities from the perspective of their academic participation. The rationale behind choosing the topic was motivated by the fact that remote online or blended higher education has increased the access of people with disabilities to higher education (Renes, 2015). With the advent of the Covid-19 pandemic through the mainstreaming of emergency remote teaching and learning (Hodges et al 2020) in universities, we wondered whether the academic access and participation of students with disabilities may be enhanced by this context. At the same time, we asked whether since the switch from face to face education to emergency remote teaching and learning had been done overnight, accessibility needs of students with disabilities were not neglected in the fast process of transition (Meleo- Erwin et al 2021). Thus we wanted to construct a dialogic space in which together with students with disabilities to explore what barriers and opportunities remote learning had brought to their lives? 

This dialogic space was influenced by a Freirean approach (1996), seeking to understand collectively and articulate a project for what a more inclusive post-pandemic university can look like (for a similar approach, pre pandemic see also Morina et al 2016). In this investigation what was significant to us was to create a space within the university in which students with disabilities expertise via experience would meet the academic expertise of faculty working on disability inclusion from educational and social work perspectives in order to produce knowledge oriented towards transforming the university. In the following, we would like to present one of the concerns that emerged as part of our project, namely the ways in which in this participatory action research project dialogic learning occurred as a basis for knowledge production. We do this by seeking to answer the research question: How did practices of dialogic learning facilitate knowledge circulation between participants in a participatory action research project aimed at transforming the university towards a more inclusive university?  

In order to better grasp this question, we invited students with disabilities from all programs of our university (a public Central East European University) to participate in a photovoice workshop (Wang & Burris, 1997) in which to present their experiences with remote higher education during the Covid-19 pandemic – focusing on barriers and opportunities of remote learning. Photovoice methodology involves asking participants to document their everyday lives and experiences through photographs that are then shared and discussed with the group with view of organizing exhibitions to inform a wider public and policymakers. We launched an open call for interested students with disabilities through our universities mailing list channels, as well through snowballing to students that were close to the team. Around eleven students signed up initially, of which 8 remained with the group throughout the entire research process (February - December 2022 – initial phase). As at the onset of our research, academic activities were still being carried out remotely due to the risk of Covid-19 virus spread, we decided to organize virtual photovoice workshops (Call-Cummings & Hauber-Özer, 2021) to protect the health of all participants. Initially, photos were uploaded to a shared document with captions and then discussed in online meetings via conferencing software. As face to face classes were resumed in April 2022, we decided to continue the workshop in a hybrid manner – participants could join physically in a face to face setting or online through videoconferencing software (April - December 2022). We also adapted photovoice methodology for the participation of the mixed group of eight students of which half had visual impairments, and two of which were blind. Photovoice research with people with disabilities is widespread, however, these forms of research often include people with intellectual and learning disabilities (e.g. Poove et al., 2014, Booth & Booth, 2003), rather than people with visual disabilities. This is due to the concern of researchers to not exclude participants with visual disabilities due to privileging sight over other senses (Mitchell et al., 2016). In our approach we adapted photovoice methodology by focusing on visual communication – meaning that we invited students to focus on what they would like someone else to see from their daily lives. We also offered to provide assistance in taking photographs if they required it. Moreover, we worked to render dissemination processes accessible.

The initial analysis of images and transcripts of three focus group type discussions as part of the photovoice workshop, as well as eight interviews conducted individually with the participants and one meeting for member checking purposes, where we presented our initial interpretations to the team of students with disabilities for validation have been completed. In this process, one of the topics that came up regularly was the ways in which participants (both students and researchers) learned from each other in this process. Pointing to how dialogic learning can occur through a participatory action research project based on photovoice methodology and valorizing the expertise by experience that students with disabilities have. In this regard, dialogic learning in the project happened: (1) Between participants about navigating barriers within the university; (2) Between student participants and those who assisted them in taking photographs about their needs and the barriers they face (3) From student participants to researchers about what other people in the university should learn about disability; (4) From student participants to researchers about how the university is experienced from the perspective of people who have a disability, (5) From participants to researchers about the limits of our academic knowledge and know-how as academics working on disability related issues and (6) Together about how to change the university. Most learning was done by researchers –thus expertise by experience of students with disabilities can enrich the academic community and through joint awareness-raising and policy advocacy activities. The processes of dialogic knowledge production also reproduced hierarchical divides between participants, while challenging them. In our paper we will reflect on the implications of our findings for work in other universities in Europe.

Booth, T., & Booth, W. (2003). In the frame: Photovoice and mothers with learning difficulties. Disability & Society, 18(4), 431-442. Call-Cummings, M., & Hauber-Özer, M. (2021). Virtual Photovoice: Methodological Lessons and Cautions. Qualitative Report, 26(10). Callon, M., & Rabeharisoa, V. (2003). Research “in the wild” and the shaping of new social identities. Technology in society, 25(2), 193-204. Freire, P. (1996). Pedagogy of the oppressed (revised). Continuum. Galis, V. (2011). Enacting disability: how can science and technology studies inform disability studies?. Disability & Society, 26(7), 825-838. Hodges, C. B., Moore, S., Lockee, B. B., Trust, T., & Bond, M. A. (2020). The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. Kearns, P., & Carton, S. (2020). Disabled activists’ involvement in developing and delivering disability studies at St Angela’s College, Sligo, Ireland. In The Routledge Handbook of Service User Involvement in Human Services Research and Education (pp. 229-238). Routledge. Meleo-Erwin, Z., Kollia, B., Fera, J., Jahren, A., & Basch, C. (2021). Online support information for students with disabilities in colleges and universities during the COVID-19 pandemic. Disability and Health Journal, 14(1), 101013. Mitchell, C., de Lange, N., & Nguyen, X. T. (2016). Visual ethics with and through the body: The participation of girls with disabilities in Vietnam in a photovoice project. In Lulia Coffey, Shelley Budgeon & Helen Cahill (eds) Learning bodies: The body in youth and childhood studies. Spinger, 241-257. Moriña, A., Lopez-Gavira, R., & Molina, V. M. (2017). What if we could imagine an ideal university? Narratives by students with disabilities. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 64(4), 353-367. Povee, K., Bishop, B. J., & Roberts, L. D. (2014). The use of photovoice with people with intellectual disabilities: Reflections, challenges and opportunities. Disability & Society, 29(6), 893-907. Renes, S. L. (2015). Increasing access to higher education through e-learning. in B. Gradinarova (Ed.). E-learning-Instructional design, organizational strategy and management. doi: 10.5772/59896 Skilton, C. J. (2011). Involving experts by experience in assessing students' readiness to practise: The value of experiential learning in student reflection and preparation for practice. Social Work Education, 30(03), 299-311. Wilken, J. P., Knevel, J., van Gijzel, S., Jongerius, E., Landzaat, C., & Nur-Voskens, I. (2020). Lessons of inclusive learning: the value of experiential knowledge of persons with a learning disability in social work education. In The Routledge Handbook of Service User Involvement in Human Services Research and Education (pp. 385-402). Routledge.