Research Plan

🧪 Research Methodology

This study utilizes a qualitative multiple case study methodology to explore how student support staff at postsecondary institutions define, implement, and assess practices designed to support neurodivergent students. Rooted in a constructivist epistemological framework, the research prioritizes the lived experiences and situated knowledge of participants, acknowledging that meaning is co-constructed through context, interaction, and reflection.

Research Design

A multiple case study approach (Yin, 2018; Stake, 2006) was selected to enable in-depth, contextualized examination across various institutional types (e.g., public, private, 2-year, 4-year, and/or minority-serving institutions). This design supports comparative analysis while allowing for the identification of both shared themes and institution-specific nuances.

Each case site will include:

Interviews with 3–5 student support professionals (e.g., academic advisors, learning specialists, disability services coordinators)
Document analysis (e.g., mission statements, accommodation policies, staff training materials)
Optional field observations, where appropriate, of staff-student interactions or support program implementation

Participant Selection

Institutions will be selected through purposeful sampling to ensure variation in institutional type, geographic region, and student demographics. Participants will be identified through a combination of institutional contacts and snowball sampling. Inclusion criteria will center on professionals who have direct responsibilities in supporting neurodivergent students and have worked in their role for a minimum of one year.

Data Collection

Data will be collected through:

Semi-structured interviews: allowing for consistency across cases while also providing room for contextual elaboration.
Document analysis: institutional artifacts relevant to support services will be examined to provide triangulation and contextual grounding.
Field notes and memos: the researcher will document impressions and analytic insights throughout the research process to support reflexivity and transparency.

All interviews will be audio-recorded, transcribed, and thematically coded using qualitative analysis software (e.g., NVivo or Dedoose).

Data Analysis

A thematic analysis approach (Braun & Clarke, 2006) will be used to analyze qualitative data across and within cases. Data will be coded inductively and deductively, using both pre-established codes informed by the literature and emergent themes from the interviews. Cross-case analysis will highlight patterns, contrasts, and site-specific conditions that inform inclusive practice.

Trustworthiness and Rigor

To enhance credibility and trustworthiness, the study will incorporate the following strategies:

Triangulation of data sources (interviews, documents, and field notes)
Member checking to confirm the accuracy of participant contributions
Audit trail documenting analytic decisions throughout the research process
Reflexivity through positionality statements and researcher memos

Ethical Considerations

This study will undergo IRB (Institutional Review Board) review and approval prior to data collection. Informed consent will be obtained from all participants. Data will be anonymized, and all identifying information will be removed to protect confidentiality. The research adheres to the ethical principles outlined by the American Educational Research Association (AERA) and the American Psychological Association (APA).

🧭 Researcher Positionality Statement

As the primary researcher, I approach this study from an insider-outsider perspective that is shaped by both personal experience and professional practice. I identify as a neurodivergent adult and as the parent of a neurodivergent child, roles that provide me with firsthand insight into the systemic challenges and opportunities present within educational environments. These experiences have informed not only my motivation for pursuing this line of inquiry but also my ongoing commitment to advancing equity in higher education.

Professionally, I have spent over two decades working in education—as a classroom teacher, special educator, nonprofit leader, and educational consultant. My career has included serving students with disabilities in public schools and in juvenile justice settings, designing executive functioning programs, and leading strategic inclusion efforts across academic and community institutions. I currently supervise staff in both clinical and academic contexts, and I actively engage with issues of access, accommodation, and culturally responsive support. These experiences provide me with a nuanced understanding of how institutional culture and individual practice intersect to shape student outcomes.

While my insider experiences offer valuable perspective, they also carry the potential for bias. I am committed to maintaining reflexivity throughout the research process by engaging in continuous critical reflection, documenting my assumptions, and seeking feedback from colleagues and advisors. I recognize that my values—including a strong belief in neurodiversity-affirming practice and student-centered inclusion—may influence how I interpret participant narratives and institutional dynamics. To mitigate this, I will rely on methodological strategies such as member checking, triangulation, and peer debriefing to ensure rigor and transparency.

This research is grounded in the belief that inclusive, identity-affirming education is not only a legal mandate but a moral imperative. By foregrounding the voices of student support staff, I aim to contribute meaningfully to the ongoing transformation of higher education into a space where all minds—and all ways of being—are welcomed, supported, and empowered to thrive.