Re-Turning to Recognition and the Ongoing Search for Creative-Relational Belonging: A Collective Biography of Living with Disability

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a well-executed article that delves into very personal reflections of living with disability. Thank you for the opportunity to review and learn from this process and the stories.

Comments are minor.

Abstract: please revise lines 11-16 as there is repetition.

Paragraph beginning on line 42 - please revise font and italics as inconsistent.

Line 77 - is it differentiated?

Introduction: Line 102-103, 122 - please insert page number for direct quotes.

Line 108 - query around sentence - Disability is constituted as a problem (by who) or can be?

111: way of working in ?

Methodology - the experiential account/process is fascinating and keenly explained. I note that this is in keeping with the abstract as it is suggested that listening and telling are the key process. 

Can some detail please be added about the actual writing process in this collective biography method? This is stated in the abstract as part of the process - what did the recording look like, how did writing and editing form part of the shared position and accounts? Line 198 - notes the word -reworked which in light of the text feels there is much more to that word. As a reader, I was invested in this account and to learning about the method.

Emotive language such as tripwires - mo(ve)ments - breathing in and out - are felt and add so much to the text.

The We ask questions on lines on 153 and 176 - We ask -  On line 153 - the subsequent quote after could be perhaps removed. Foregrounding these questions in the text and in italics is significant for the reader's journey here and throughout the article.

Quote year and page for Delueze's words on line 189

Results

Story 2

Line 334 - I wanted to check owner of this sentence - is it more likely that the woman said "it is not feasible to go there with a wheelchair" as current reading suggests that the individual is saying that it is not their intention to travel via wheelchair.

Check Delueze's quotes of a safe plot of land and creative belonging for - page numbers etc.

Author Response

Please see the attachement

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, 

Thank you for coming together and for carrying out collective biography to share your experiences of times when you shifted disability to be more than just the way it is tended to be described when considering identity work. It is refreshing to see collective biography being used to discuss disability and the stories in the findings section really bring to life the experiences which have been shared and discussed in the three day workshop. 

A couple of areas for you to consider: 

The style of writing is lovely, as is the discussion of how we discuss the making of disability and remaking of it. What I find to be missing is engagement with disability literature to bring out more explicitly the contribution to the literature you are making here. I find that you need to spell it out more as the article does not highlight the contribution you are making to the field. It can help to draw on critical disability studies, and the definitions they use to discuss disability, particularly with intersectionality. By using collective biography it is helping to tease out the way disability is not only experienced, remade in a particular moment, but constantly becoming/changing. 

More can be said about the methodological approach and how it was used. It is mentioned there are 5 members making up the workshop but not all 5 stories are presented in the article, so how was this chosen, what about the ethical procedures, reflexivity before, during and after the workshop? Focusing on these aspects can help to strengthen the trustworthiness/rigor of the methodological strategy used and instill quality in the findings and analysis. 

Finally, it would help if the conclusion draws out how can researchers in disability studies take the discussion forward, does collective biography open up a new way to view disability? Does the 'becoming' and 're-turning' open new ways of shaping what is disabled/abled? What is the usefulness of the approach you have taken that can be of value to other scholars in the field or those wanting to adopt this method when working with people with disabilities? This can be teased out a little more with practical examples. 

 

Author Response

Please see attachement

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you to the authors for your work in this area. Presenting the stories of individuals with disabilities is crucial and to do so in a way that synthesizes multiple stories to show patterns and make a point is a good strategy. I enjoyed the application of collective biography. Below are my recommendations for revision that I think would improve the manuscript and enhance the inferences to be drawn from the findings. 

Introduction

• I feel the Introduction is good. It presents many of the important terms and situates the research.
• Your final paragraph describes what we often refer to as "Integration", the logical step beyond inclusion. You might want to refer to it as such to help the reader with context.

Method

• I felt that this was the weakest part of the paper. The third paragraph, most of the fifth (all of it except the last two sentences), and the Davies quote are all superfluous as they do not describe your method and go into excessive detail about the methodology.
• The final paragraph would be better situated in the Discussion (if included at all) because it situates the findings of collective biography rather than describing your methods.
• What I found to be lacking was more discussion of your process. The data collection was at least somewhat presented, but could be more detailed. Explain the extent of the story sharing, the time spent writing, listening, revising, and reviewing. We only know that it occurred over three days among five people. How much of that time was actually devoted to the tasks.
• What is missing is data analysis. Rigorous qualitative research requires explanation for why data were excluded from presentation. You selected these three stories because you felt they were the best representations? Because they had a coherent thread while the others addressed different issues? It wasn't variety of disability because two are similar in inclusion of mobility impairments. 
• I would also prime the reader with a description of how you present the results--presenting each story individually with its own analysis, but then with the Discussion including presentation and analysis of the common themes. How did you code those themes? Was a systematic analytic approach used or was it agreed upon through your discussions?

Results

• The stories and their individual analyses were presented well. However, they each excluded important information that was then only shared with the analysis.
• In story one, it sounds like the protagonist was a graduate student. In the story she is referred to as a "PhD research position", but later is described as "doing a PhD". That is a HUGE difference as being a student would not be considered stable employment as it is temporary and of a shorter duration than a loan. From the story, blindness was not given as an explicit rationale, she merely assumed the rejection was because of disability rather than temporary employment status (which likely was the main driver). This doesn't negate your analyses, but it does provide a different direction. Even when barriers might not be explicitly related to disability status, history and systemic barriers may amplify or associate them. It often leaves them harder to overcome.
• I take umbrage with use of the term "literally in the dark" because it was likely not true. Having a loan rejected does not turn ones lights off or extinguish the sun.
• Story 2, for me, was the crown jewel. It was the clearest of having to overcome concrete barriers that are systemic in nature. I was quite shocked by the description of Harry taking "long strides" when it had been established that he uses a wheelchair. His being privileged to be able to, in addition to the staircase being wide enough for a wheelchair--not an assumption in the underground of Paris, puts an additional layer onto the story. Degree of "disability" or impairment creates a caste system within its confines. Harry had privilege that others do not, while at the same time being "othered" with barriers to access. A similar pattern could be presented for Story 1 given that the protagonist was pursuing a PhD and obviously had the cognitive means, as well as income, to pursue purchasing property.
• Related to Story 2, on p 10 you mention how "The challenges are embedded in the very structure of our environment..." which I think is very on-point. However, this is also related to the degree of impairment (not the label of disability as you call it in the same paragraph) which can be temporary or permanent. 
• I love the use of the term "micro-kindnesses". Lovely. 
• Story 3 let me to a similar issue as Story 2 as wheelchair use is described, but then mentioned as "quickly jump into it". That is a layer of privilege others do not have access to. Nuance in terms of the degree barriers affect individuals would be helpful to the manuscript. 

Discussion

• I felt that the Discussion was very succinct and well presented. With the revisions to the stories and method, I think it would serve as an excellent summary of the themes identified.

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf