Accessibiliser les pratiques de recherche sur le handicap : une approche par les droits humains.

IF 0.3 4区 医学 Q4 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Sante Publique Pub Date : 2024-01-01
Arnaud Béal, Chantal Bruno, Édeline Delanaud, Christophe Dupont, Benoît Eyraud, Isabel Miranda
{"title":"Accessibiliser les pratiques de recherche sur le handicap : une approche par les droits humains.","authors":"Arnaud Béal, Chantal Bruno, Édeline Delanaud, Christophe Dupont, Benoît Eyraud, Isabel Miranda","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>In this article, we offer an overview of the Capdroits participatory research approach, initially focusing on the controversy surrounding Article 12 of the International Convention of Persons with Disabilities, &#8220;Recognition of legal personality under conditions of equality.&#8221; Its objective is to encourage the participation of the people concerned by Article 12. It brings together academic researchers, experts in support relationships, and people directly concerned by impediment situations.</p><p><strong>Purpose of the study: </strong>In this contribution, we present our participatory research approach, the methodology of &#8220;public problem-solving&#8221; and the ways in which it was deployed. We will show how productions and evaluations have been made accessible, while identifying the tensions at work.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Two phases of research have been developed and deployed since 2015, based on an experimental &#8220;public problem-solving&#8221; methodology. Several collaborative productions have been developed, intended for various types of reception and made possible thanks to accessibility practices. They nevertheless highlight the tensions produced in the participatory processes.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The epistemology that we have been collectively developing since 2015 radically aims to reduce social and cognitive inequalities by promoting experiential knowledge while perpetuating inequalities. Our ability to dialogue [14] is the basis for co-constructing a radical epistemology, which, while imperfect, is profoundly purposeful.</p>","PeriodicalId":49575,"journal":{"name":"Sante Publique","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sante Publique","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: In this article, we offer an overview of the Capdroits participatory research approach, initially focusing on the controversy surrounding Article 12 of the International Convention of Persons with Disabilities, “Recognition of legal personality under conditions of equality.” Its objective is to encourage the participation of the people concerned by Article 12. It brings together academic researchers, experts in support relationships, and people directly concerned by impediment situations.

Purpose of the study: In this contribution, we present our participatory research approach, the methodology of “public problem-solving” and the ways in which it was deployed. We will show how productions and evaluations have been made accessible, while identifying the tensions at work.

Results: Two phases of research have been developed and deployed since 2015, based on an experimental “public problem-solving” methodology. Several collaborative productions have been developed, intended for various types of reception and made possible thanks to accessibility practices. They nevertheless highlight the tensions produced in the participatory processes.

Conclusions: The epistemology that we have been collectively developing since 2015 radically aims to reduce social and cognitive inequalities by promoting experiential knowledge while perpetuating inequalities. Our ability to dialogue [14] is the basis for co-constructing a radical epistemology, which, while imperfect, is profoundly purposeful.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
让残疾研究实践更无障碍:人权方法。
导言:在本文中,我们将概述 Capdroits 参与式研究方法,首先关注围绕《国际残疾人公约》第 12 条 "在平等条件下承认法律人格 "的争议。它汇集了学术研究人员、支持关系专家以及与障碍情况直接相关的人员:在本报告中,我们将介绍我们的参与式研究方法、"公共问题解决 "的方法论及其应用方式。我们将展示如何使制作和评估便于使用,同时确定工作中的紧张关系:自 2015 年以来,基于实验性的“公共问题解决”方法,已经开发并部署了两个阶段的研究。通过无障碍实践,开发了多个合作作品,用于不同类型的接收,并使其成为可能。不过,这些作品突出了参与过程中产生的紧张关系:自 2015 年以来,我们一直在集体发展的认识论从根本上旨在通过促进经验知识来减少社会和认知上的不平等,同时使不平等永久化。我们的对话能力[14]是共同构建激进认识论的基础,尽管这种认识论并不完美,但却具有深刻的目的性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Sante Publique
Sante Publique PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
33.30%
发文量
252
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: La revue Santé Publique s’adresse à l’ensemble des acteurs de santé publique qu’ils soient décideurs, professionnels de santé, acteurs de terrain, chercheurs, enseignants ou formateurs, etc. Elle publie des travaux de recherche, des évaluations, des analyses d’action, des réflexions sur des interventions de santé, des opinions, relevant des champs de la santé publique et de l’analyse des services de soins, des sciences sociales et de l’action sociale. Santé publique est une revue à comité de lecture, multidisciplinaire et généraliste, qui publie sur l’ensemble des thèmes de la santé publique parmi lesquels : accès et recours aux soins, déterminants et inégalités sociales de santé, prévention, éducation pour la santé, promotion de la santé, organisation des soins, environnement, formation des professionnels de santé, nutrition, politiques de santé, pratiques professionnelles, qualité des soins, gestion des risques sanitaires, représentation et santé perçue, santé scolaire, santé et travail, systèmes de santé, systèmes d’information, veille sanitaire, déterminants de la consommation de soins, organisation et économie des différents secteurs de production de soins (hôpital, médicament, etc.), évaluation médico-économique d’activités de soins ou de prévention et de programmes de santé, planification des ressources, politiques de régulation et de financement, etc
期刊最新文献
Pratiques professionnelles et soins dentaires non programmés en Nouvelle-Aquitaine La santé publique : des fonctions, des compétences, des valeurs ? Insuffisances des réponses aux viols à Ouagadougou : réflexions à partir du vécu de jeunes survivantes Évaluation du dispositif Tuto’Tour de la grossesse chez les femmes fumeuses enceintes vulnérables Après la pilule. Le choix contraceptif des jeunes femmes à l’épreuve du rejet des hormones
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1