Scholarlink

Background <p>Traditional disability studies often overlook children with disabilities, their families, and communities from analytical processes, particularly in low-resource settings. This methodological paper describes co-analysis conducted across virtual spaces with marginalized stakeholders as partners in data interpretation, examining whether participatory approaches can address epistemic injustices while navigating resource constraints in urban Philippine communities.</p> Methods <p>Children were engaged in data-gathering through a mosaic approach (storytelling, drawing, photo elicitation, interview) across 24 individual virtual sessions, while adults participated in eight (8) online focus groups. We employed a four-pronged co-analysis approach with 49 participants from a community-based rehabilitation (CBR) program for urban low-resource communities: eight (8) children with disabilities aged 9–16 years, 18 parents, nine (9) CBR workers, and 14 local organization members. The co-analysis approach comprised: (1) participant-directed methodology, (2) grassroots epistemology, (3) iterative partnership building, and (4) collective reflexivity addressing researcher positionality.</p> Results <p>Co-analysis revealed four insights. First, layered accessibility is essential for inclusion, combining universal design with disability-specific scaffolding. Second, co-analysis itself creates hierarchies as analytical frameworks privilege certain cognitive and communication abilities despite accessibility adaptations. We argue for epistemic pluralism, recognizing different ways of analytical contribution. Third, virtual spaces generated different hierarchies rather than eliminating them. Fourth, structural inequities persisted despite methodological innovation, as digital access, economic precarity, and cognitive demands reproduced exclusions our methodology aimed to dismantle.</p> Conclusions <p>Achieving epistemic justice through co-analysis requires institutional resources, researcher humility that values diverse analytical contributions, and acknowledgment that participatory methods may expand access but cannot overcome structural inequalities without concurrent shifts in power and resources.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Co-analysis in virtual spaces: engaging children with disabilities, families, and the community as research partners in low-resource settings

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年5月9日

查看全文
  • Karen S. Sagun,
  • Paul Edward N. Muego,
  • Maria Eliza R. Aguila

摘要

Background

Traditional disability studies often overlook children with disabilities, their families, and communities from analytical processes, particularly in low-resource settings. This methodological paper describes co-analysis conducted across virtual spaces with marginalized stakeholders as partners in data interpretation, examining whether participatory approaches can address epistemic injustices while navigating resource constraints in urban Philippine communities.

Methods

Children were engaged in data-gathering through a mosaic approach (storytelling, drawing, photo elicitation, interview) across 24 individual virtual sessions, while adults participated in eight (8) online focus groups. We employed a four-pronged co-analysis approach with 49 participants from a community-based rehabilitation (CBR) program for urban low-resource communities: eight (8) children with disabilities aged 9–16 years, 18 parents, nine (9) CBR workers, and 14 local organization members. The co-analysis approach comprised: (1) participant-directed methodology, (2) grassroots epistemology, (3) iterative partnership building, and (4) collective reflexivity addressing researcher positionality.

Results

Co-analysis revealed four insights. First, layered accessibility is essential for inclusion, combining universal design with disability-specific scaffolding. Second, co-analysis itself creates hierarchies as analytical frameworks privilege certain cognitive and communication abilities despite accessibility adaptations. We argue for epistemic pluralism, recognizing different ways of analytical contribution. Third, virtual spaces generated different hierarchies rather than eliminating them. Fourth, structural inequities persisted despite methodological innovation, as digital access, economic precarity, and cognitive demands reproduced exclusions our methodology aimed to dismantle.

Conclusions

Achieving epistemic justice through co-analysis requires institutional resources, researcher humility that values diverse analytical contributions, and acknowledgment that participatory methods may expand access but cannot overcome structural inequalities without concurrent shifts in power and resources.