Our original question was “Who falls into the gap of unaccommodated disabilities at universities and why?” I’ve found that our overall question has not changed as much as our specific points of interest. At first, our paper was really disorganized. We were exploring coming at this paper from a logistic perspective. This is the perspective I mainly wrote about for my blog post. Using this perspective, we would have talked about university policy, budgets, and legal accommodation requirements as well as how those logistics affect disability accommodations. We were also exploring coming at this paper from a social perspective. Utilizing this perspective, we would have talked about ableism and how peoples’ view of disabled people as lesser individuals causes them to care less about accommodating disability. Now, instead of just tackling the logistic or the social perspective, we decided to combine the two in order to create a fuller and more convincing argument.
Furthermore, at first we were going to break down our argument into first “who” falls into the category of invisible disabilities, and then the “why” do people fall into these gaps. However, we found that organizing the paper this way led to problems because you very well can’t have a conversation about the “why” without talking about the “who” simultaneously. When we tried, it sounded confusing. And so, we instead tried to integrate conversations about the “who” and “why” a little more so that the essay would be a little more fluid.
Also, when we first started, we thought our “who” question was just going to be answered with a standard “people with invisible disabilities.” But as we researched more, we found that are so many reasons as to why a disability could be considered “invisible,” so we decided to think of the answer to that question as a short mantra instead of a one-word definition. And so when we were thinking “who falls into the gaps of invisible disability,” we thought to ourselves “the undiagnosed, the unrecognized, and the unreported.” The undiagnosed represents the people who do not have their disabilities diagnosed either because they disability is hard to diagnose or because their don’t have great medical care. The unrecognized represents people who do not recognize their own disability even though it affects their daily life. And the unreported are those who do not report their disabilities to their university.
Now, if I may go into a short discussion on where I think my group and I are instead of continuing to talk about our changes because simply put, we haven’t made many. I still think that the topic my group is pursuing is interesting, but I think that our topic is still very broad. It’s been confusing for me, writing this paper, because usually when I write a collaborative paper it’s with one other person that I know very well instead of two other people that I don’t know that well at all. This idea of writing a paper with three people, especially on such a complicated topic, is very difficult for me. So needless to say organizing, researching, and writing this paper has been a challenge. My group has had a ton of trouble as organizing our research and writing. We have three different introductions going currently. And we have had tons of trouble getting together for meetings. I think this paper is going to be a lot easier once we have a set rough draft to work with because personally I work better once I can see the full picture and not just bits and pieces of ideas and research stuffed into bullet points. So to sum things up, I think that this paper has potential, but I don’t think I’ll really be able to see that potential until I can start working with the rough draft.