Claire Spivakovsky, Keith McVilly, Ms Tessa-May Zirnsak, Susan Ainsworth, Lorraine Graham, Matthew Harrison, Victor Sojo, Lindsey Gale, Anna Genat
{"title":"本体论和认识论塑造了我们对包容的理解:残疾与包容研究文献综述","authors":"Claire Spivakovsky, Keith McVilly, Ms Tessa-May Zirnsak, Susan Ainsworth, Lorraine Graham, Matthew Harrison, Victor Sojo, Lindsey Gale, Anna Genat","doi":"10.1111/jppi.12461","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>People with disability continue to face barriers to substantive and meaningful inclusion in accommodation and community settings. The aim of this systematic review was to examine the characteristics of the literature on ‘inclusion’, ‘integration’, ‘exclusion’, and ‘segregation’ for people with disability in accommodation and community settings. This literature is important because it provides the evidence base that informs policy and practice. We identified 457 articles that primarily related to the experiences of people with intellectual disability and psycho-social disability. We found: (1) the volume of publications relating to the ‘inclusion’, ‘integration’, ‘exclusion’ and ‘segregation’ of people with disability in accommodation and community living settings has increased each year since 2006; (2) high-income western countries were overrepresented in research outputs; (3) most research has been undertaken in the health sciences; (4) only 30% of literature directly engaged with people with disability; (5) less than 50% of the publications we reviewed (223 out of 457 manuscripts) identified inclusion, integration, exclusion and segregation as their primary focus; (6) ‘inclusion’, ‘integration’, ‘exclusion’ and ‘segregation’ were predominantly used in the context of specific populations—psycho-social disability and intellectual disability; (7) there is great variation in the attention paid to the experiences of different communities of people with disability; and (8) the notable absence of current scholarly literature on the experiences and outcomes of people with disability living at home with parents and/or siblings. Each of these findings have important implications for the research agenda, policy, and practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":47236,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities","volume":"20 3","pages":"273-288"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jppi.12461","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The ontology and epistemology shaping our understanding of inclusion: A critical review of the research literature on disability and inclusion\",\"authors\":\"Claire Spivakovsky, Keith McVilly, Ms Tessa-May Zirnsak, Susan Ainsworth, Lorraine Graham, Matthew Harrison, Victor Sojo, Lindsey Gale, Anna Genat\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jppi.12461\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>People with disability continue to face barriers to substantive and meaningful inclusion in accommodation and community settings. The aim of this systematic review was to examine the characteristics of the literature on ‘inclusion’, ‘integration’, ‘exclusion’, and ‘segregation’ for people with disability in accommodation and community settings. This literature is important because it provides the evidence base that informs policy and practice. We identified 457 articles that primarily related to the experiences of people with intellectual disability and psycho-social disability. We found: (1) the volume of publications relating to the ‘inclusion’, ‘integration’, ‘exclusion’ and ‘segregation’ of people with disability in accommodation and community living settings has increased each year since 2006; (2) high-income western countries were overrepresented in research outputs; (3) most research has been undertaken in the health sciences; (4) only 30% of literature directly engaged with people with disability; (5) less than 50% of the publications we reviewed (223 out of 457 manuscripts) identified inclusion, integration, exclusion and segregation as their primary focus; (6) ‘inclusion’, ‘integration’, ‘exclusion’ and ‘segregation’ were predominantly used in the context of specific populations—psycho-social disability and intellectual disability; (7) there is great variation in the attention paid to the experiences of different communities of people with disability; and (8) the notable absence of current scholarly literature on the experiences and outcomes of people with disability living at home with parents and/or siblings. Each of these findings have important implications for the research agenda, policy, and practice.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47236,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities\",\"volume\":\"20 3\",\"pages\":\"273-288\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jppi.12461\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jppi.12461\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jppi.12461","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
The ontology and epistemology shaping our understanding of inclusion: A critical review of the research literature on disability and inclusion
People with disability continue to face barriers to substantive and meaningful inclusion in accommodation and community settings. The aim of this systematic review was to examine the characteristics of the literature on ‘inclusion’, ‘integration’, ‘exclusion’, and ‘segregation’ for people with disability in accommodation and community settings. This literature is important because it provides the evidence base that informs policy and practice. We identified 457 articles that primarily related to the experiences of people with intellectual disability and psycho-social disability. We found: (1) the volume of publications relating to the ‘inclusion’, ‘integration’, ‘exclusion’ and ‘segregation’ of people with disability in accommodation and community living settings has increased each year since 2006; (2) high-income western countries were overrepresented in research outputs; (3) most research has been undertaken in the health sciences; (4) only 30% of literature directly engaged with people with disability; (5) less than 50% of the publications we reviewed (223 out of 457 manuscripts) identified inclusion, integration, exclusion and segregation as their primary focus; (6) ‘inclusion’, ‘integration’, ‘exclusion’ and ‘segregation’ were predominantly used in the context of specific populations—psycho-social disability and intellectual disability; (7) there is great variation in the attention paid to the experiences of different communities of people with disability; and (8) the notable absence of current scholarly literature on the experiences and outcomes of people with disability living at home with parents and/or siblings. Each of these findings have important implications for the research agenda, policy, and practice.