British Journal of Learning Disabilities最新文献

Background

Inclusive research has sidelined discussion of theoretical issues with researchers with intellectual/learning disabilities. This is a situation which the Big Ideas initiative sought to change. Between 2021 and 2023, the Open University, Leipzig University and the University of Koblenz organised nine workshops to explore influential theories in disability research. The objective was to share a theory (Big Idea) that sheds light on disability with self-advocates and discuss how it relates to their experience. By making theories accessible and discussing how they relate to lived experience, we aimed to inform self-advocates and activist researchers about key concepts in disability, deepen their capacity for research and campaigning, and better equip them to activate for change.

Methods

The online workshops were evaluated by observers. These observations were used by an inclusive group of activist researchers as the basis for an overall evaluation of the project.

Findings

People with learning disabilities can engage with complex theories if these are presented accessibly alongside opportunities for reflective discussion. Input from self-advocates helps to broaden and deepen theoretical understanding.

An unanticipated but important finding was that the Big Ideas workshops created a new space in which academics and self-advocates could learn together as equals.

Conclusions

Making theory accessible and easier to understand is both possible and valuable.

Background

I'm Me is a creative research project co-created between York St John University and Mind the Gap, investigating learning disabled and autistic artists’ understandings of identity, representation and voice.

Methods

In this paper, we use Walmsley and Johnson's criteria for inclusive research to reflect on the involvement of people with learning disabilities and autism in I'm Me.

Findings

Researchers need to carefully reflect on who benefits from research. Long-term relationships allow genuine allyship and for research design to emerge in an inclusive manner. Taking the time to develop access and clear structures for decision-making can support people with learning disabilities’ participation and control over research. Part of access is sharing our findings in accessible ways, in this case, by using plain language and artistic outputs.

Conclusions

Working out how people with learning disabilities and autism should be involved in research has involved establishing structures, reflecting and responding to create as much involvement and enable as much decision-making as possible.

Background

Inclusive research is widely accepted as an essential part of the process to democratise knowledge creation and dissemination. However, while peer review is an important part of academic publishing, the potential to include people with learning disabilities in this element of the research process has not previously been explored using a deliberative approach.

Methods

Accessibility adaptations were made to the citizens' jury approach enabling people with learning disabilities to participate. Sixteen adults with mild to moderate learning disabilities were recruited to participate in the adapted citizens' jury. Jury members took part in capacity-building workshops to develop their knowledge of research and research processes. Six expert witnesses presented evidence to the citizens' jury and were questioned on aspects of inclusive research, representation, peer review and academic publishing processes. Facilitators supported citizens' jury members to reflect on the evidence presented and to develop recommendations for inclusive peer review.

Findings

The citizens' jury was an effective inclusive research approach in this case. Jurors made recommendations related to the question of inclusive peer review: inclusive reviews should be done by groups rather than individuals; the research under review must be in accessible formats and on relevant topics; reviewers need sufficient time to conduct reviews; and diverse groups of people with learning disabilities should be involved.

Conclusions

People with learning disabilities appreciate the importance of peer review but do not necessarily want to participate in it. This jury suggested creative approaches to disseminating, reviewing and engaging with research, including building more opportunities for dialogue between researchers and self-advocates. The adapted citizens' jury was a novel and effective method of supporting deliberation on this topic but other approaches to including the views and experiences of those with more severe learning disabilities should be explored.