Ajidd-American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities最新文献

This commentary highlights pervasive challenges related to the science of intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD), which we often take for granted. We argue that social power asymmetry and entrenched patterns of epistemic injustices undermine our science and call attention to the need to maximize our efforts to undo these unfair practices to enhance future care and research in IDD.

Lack of diversity in IDD research is typically conceptualized only in terms of (1) recruitment of samples that do not appropriately represent the sociodemographics of the population, or (2) the limited number of researchers from historically marginalized backgrounds. Critically, the field also suffers from over-reliance on perspectives and social systems of dominant culture-both in how disability is regarded and in relation to other dimensions of identity and culture. These lenses lead to research findings that reinforce, rather than reduce, social inequities. We propose a framework that minimizes reliance on diagnostic categories, shifts from deficit- to person-centered models, acknowledges people's multiple identities, and includes self-advocates and diverse communities as partners in the research enterprise. The systems change necessary to support this framework is described.

As a major funder of research on intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD), NIH has a broad view of the profound impact of cultural and structural barriers on the characteristics of IDD study populations and the composition of the IDD research workforce. While long overdue, multiple efforts are currently underway across NIH aimed at addressing these barriers and increasing meaningful representation in biomedical and behavioral research.

In "Toward Equity in Research on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities," we sought to make entrenched assumptions and practices of intellectual and developmental disabilities research visible by explicitly describing the status quo in terms of models of disability, participant and researcher identities, research priorities, and biases in measurement and treatment approaches. We then curated individual- and systems-level actions drawn from disability justice and broader social justice lenses to offer a way forward. We focused on three major areas (i.e., intersectionality and person-centered approaches, participatory research, and interprofessional collaboration), depicting influences, methods, and actions in a framework of disability, identity, and culture. In this Author Response, we address five commentaries that critique and extend that synthesis.

"Toward Equity in Research on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities" (IDD) is a timely and comprehensive article highlighting gaps in the "dominant culture" approach to current research strategies designed to address IDD. Recentering systems involved in the research enterprise are recommended. This commentary provides additional guidance from a social justice, equity, and inclusion lens, including a clinical anthropology approach to research.

This commentary on Kover and Abbeduto (2023) underscores the critical importance of naming and framing toward an equity agenda in intellectual and developmental disabilities research. More specifically, I briefly outline (1) why racialization is an important anchor in IDD discourse; (2) whiteness as a necessary point of discussion; and (3) the adoption of critical inquiry and critical praxis.