This study examines policy and procedure documents related to Disability at 3 U.S. institutions of higher education over a 25-year time frame. Policy and procedure documents are the foundation that govern how institutions "handle" Disability, outlining expectations and guidelines for providing services and establishing bureaucratic channels used to determine who has access to those services. This research employs a comparative case study mixed methods approach. The found documents and their online contexts are analyzed according to four qualities: findability, cohesion, consistency, and transparency. A document's findability refers to the ability of a user to locate the original document, and a document's cohesion, consistency, and transparency, refer to respectively where, what, and how these documents persist from their original creation date. As I collected these documents, I constructed comparative matrices to track these qualities within and across three different universities. The initial findability of documents demonstrates two key results: 1) during the overall 1990– 2015 time frame, there was a marked change in the availability of materials in a digital format, and 2) the emergence of a way to describe documents via the phrase "Does Not Exist." These materials definitively did not exist prior to a given time frame, but later versions of such documents included an earlier start date. Cohesion results indicate that the documents most likely to be presented in a single source were broadly usable to a large portion of the university population: the general student body. Consistency results address a major issue with the document search: while these materials were likely to exist, at each of these institutions and time frames (barring the DNE documents), they are very difficult to track down. Transparency across found, single-source documents was ubiquitous; if it could be found, it had searchable text. Beyond the findings of my document collection, I created two major products as a result of this dissertation work: key recommendations for different stakeholder groups and a curated exhibit of VT-specific materials collected for this study. / Doctor of Philosophy / This study examines policy and procedure documents related to Disability at 3 U.S. institutions of higher education over a 25-year time frame. Policy and procedure documents are the foundation that govern how institutions "handle" Disability, outlining expectations and guidelines for providing services and establishing bureaucratic channels used to determine who has access to those services. This research employs a comparative case study mixed methods approach. The found documents and their online contexts are analyzed according to four qualities: findability, cohesion, consistency, and transparency. A document's findability refers to the ability of a user to locate the original document, and a document's cohesion, consistency, and transparency, refer to respectively where, what, and how these documents persist from their original creation date. As I collected these documents, I constructed comparative matrices to track these qualities within and across three different universities. The initial findability of documents demonstrates two key results: 1) during the overall 1990– 2015 time frame, there was a marked change in the availability of materials in a digital format, and 2) the emergence of a way to describe documents via the phrase "Does Not Exist." These materials definitively did not exist prior to a given time frame, but later versions of such documents included an earlier start date. Cohesion results indicate that the documents most likely to be presented in a single source were broadly usable to a large portion of the university population: the general student body. Consistency results address a major issue with the document search: while these materials were likely to exist, at each of these institutions and time frames (barring the DNE documents), they are very difficult to track down. Transparency across found, single-source documents was ubiquitous; if it could be found, it had searchable text. Beyond the findings of the document collection, there are two major products as a result of this dissertation work. First, key recommendations for different stakeholder groups (SEEKERS, WRITERS, and KEEPERS) are outlined; these recommendations are intended for the entire audience as practices that they can incorporate within their own documents. Second, the work undertaken to create a repository using materials from my document collection, utilizing the Qualitative Data Repository (based in Syracuse University) as the host for a curated exhibit of VT-specific materials, is described.

Research in Indigenous contexts is strongly associated with colonialism (Smith, 1999). In response to this, Indigenous scholars have, in the last two decades, recentred research on Indigenous ways of knowing and doing (Kovach, 2009; Wilson, 2008). This change marks the advent of an "Indigenous research paradigm" based on "an ontology, epistemology, methodology, and axiology that is Indigenous" (Wilson, 2008, p. 38). In recent years, this approach has gained momentum in Canada, making it a "fifth paradigm" and a sought-after research approach across disciplines (Chilisa, 2020, p. 19). This thesis seeks to better understand the evolution of Canadian Indigenous research across disciplines in the last two decades (1997–2020). Using a mixed-methods approach (western and Indigenous), I adopted Arksey and O'Malley's (2005) scoping review methodology for the initial five steps and Kovach's (2010) Indigenous conversational method for the final consultation step. Based on the in-depth analysis of 46 Indigenous research studies, my findings indicate a notable increase in the number of collaborations between Indigenous and non-Indigenous partners, especially in the last five years. This may signal the beginning of an era of reconciliation in research; however, my conversations with Indigenous scholars revealed that, in many cases, collaborations are tainted by tokenism and present many risks for Indigenous researchers. Indigenous research is principle-based, and its key principles are relationality, reciprocity, respect, and accountability. Indigenous scholars emphasized that the key to successful collaborations and to "good" Indigenous research is taking the time to build genuine relationships based on these principles. My research thus demonstrates that healthy and productive collaborative Indigenous research is possible, but only when there is relational accountability on the part of non-Indigenous partners. In sum, using a scoping review analysis and the Indigenous conversational method, this research has established that the marker of robust and valuable Indigenous research is congruency: the clear and explicit alignment between researchers' positionalities, their epistemic frameworks, and the methodologies used to conduct the research.

By asking the question “How do young, urban, professional Kenyans make connections between tribal identity, colonialism, and the lived experience of nationhood?,” the researcher engages with eight participants in exploring their relationships with their tribal groups. From this juncture the researcher, through a co-constructed process with participants, interrogates the idea of nationhood by querying their interpretations of the concepts of power and resistance within their multi-ethnic societies. The utility of KuPiga Hadithi as a cultural responsive methodology for data collection along with poetic analysis as part of the qualitative tools of examination allowed the researcher to identify five emergent and iterative themes: (1) colonial wounds, (2) power inequities, (3) tensions, (4) intersection, and (5) hope. Participant discussion of these themes suggests an impenetrable link between tribal identity and nationhood. Schooling, as first a colonial and then national construct, works to mediate that link. Therefore, there is the need for a re-conceptualization of the term ‘nation’ in the post-Independence era.