Disability Research in Australia: Deciding to Be a Research Participant and the Experience of Participation.

Maddy Slattery, Carolyn Ehrlich, Michael Norwood, Delena Amsters, Gary Allen
{"title":"Disability Research in Australia: Deciding to Be a Research Participant and the Experience of Participation.","authors":"Maddy Slattery,&nbsp;Carolyn Ehrlich,&nbsp;Michael Norwood,&nbsp;Delena Amsters,&nbsp;Gary Allen","doi":"10.1177/15562646221147350","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Little is known about why people with disability choose to take part in disability research and what their experience is like. Knowledge of this may help researchers and research ethics committees improve the empowered and ethical participation of people with disability in disability, healthcare, and human service focussed research. This cross-sectional mixed-methods study explored the perspectives and experiences of a group of Australian adults with disability regarding their involvement in research. Online surveys (N = 29) and follow-up interviews (N = 15) were conducted. The study found the decision to participate was a complex appraisal of benefit to self and others, research relevance, value, comfort, convenience, safety and risk. The attitudes and behaviours of researchers in cultivating trust by adopting an empathic approach to the conduct of disability research appear to be an important aspect of participant experience. Research ethics committees may benefit from knowledge of the 'microethical' moments that occur in such research.</p>","PeriodicalId":50211,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics","volume":"18 1-2","pages":"37-49"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15562646221147350","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Little is known about why people with disability choose to take part in disability research and what their experience is like. Knowledge of this may help researchers and research ethics committees improve the empowered and ethical participation of people with disability in disability, healthcare, and human service focussed research. This cross-sectional mixed-methods study explored the perspectives and experiences of a group of Australian adults with disability regarding their involvement in research. Online surveys (N = 29) and follow-up interviews (N = 15) were conducted. The study found the decision to participate was a complex appraisal of benefit to self and others, research relevance, value, comfort, convenience, safety and risk. The attitudes and behaviours of researchers in cultivating trust by adopting an empathic approach to the conduct of disability research appear to be an important aspect of participant experience. Research ethics committees may benefit from knowledge of the 'microethical' moments that occur in such research.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
澳大利亚的残疾研究:决定成为研究参与者和参与的经验。
对于为什么残疾人选择参加残疾研究以及他们的经历是什么样的,人们知之甚少。了解这一点可能有助于研究人员和研究伦理委员会提高残疾人在以残疾、医疗保健和人类服务为重点的研究中的授权和道德参与。这项横断面混合方法研究探讨了一组澳大利亚成年残疾人参与研究的观点和经历。进行了在线调查(N = 29)和随访访谈(N = 15)。研究发现,决定参与研究是一个复杂的评估过程,包括对自己和他人的益处、研究相关性、价值、舒适度、便利性、安全性和风险。研究人员在培养信任方面的态度和行为,通过采取移情的方法进行残疾研究,似乎是参与者经验的一个重要方面。研究伦理委员会可能会从此类研究中出现的“微观伦理”时刻的知识中受益。
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
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
7.70%
发文量
30
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics (JERHRE) is the only journal in the field of human research ethics dedicated exclusively to empirical research. Empirical knowledge translates ethical principles into procedures appropriate to specific cultures, contexts, and research topics. The journal''s distinguished editorial and advisory board brings a range of expertise and international perspective to provide high-quality double-blind peer-reviewed original articles.
期刊最新文献
Joint Editorial: Informed Consent and AI Transcription of Qualitative Data. An Example of a Clinical Research Ethics Committee in Türkiye: Types of Studies Analysed, Their Phases and Investigators. Decision-Making Capabilities of Artificial Intelligence Platforms as Institutional Review Board Members: Comment. Perceptions of the Research Integrity Climate in Egyptian Universities: A Survey Among Academic Researchers. Comparison of Instructions to Authors and Reporting of Ethics Components in Selected African Biomedical Journals: 2008 and 2017.
×
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