Transformative Inclusion: Differentiating Qualitative Research Methods to Support Participation for Individuals With Complex Communication or Cognitive Profiles

IF 3.9 2区 社会学 Q1 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
Neil Kenny, A. Doyle, F. Horgan
{"title":"Transformative Inclusion: Differentiating Qualitative Research Methods to Support Participation for Individuals With Complex Communication or Cognitive Profiles","authors":"Neil Kenny, A. Doyle, F. Horgan","doi":"10.1177/16094069221146992","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Recent decades have seen an increase in the use of qualitative research methods within disability research, often seeking to include the voices of individuals with disabilities in research informing policy and service provision. However, such cohorts of participants often present with diverse communication profiles, leading to negative assumptions about their capacity to participate in traditionally common forms of qualitative data collection, such as interviews or focus groups. This effectively marginalises them from participating in research relevant to their lives and social inclusion. The current paper argues that, despite the existence of a range of participatory methods, there remain barriers across methodological approaches to the inclusion of participants with complex profiles within qualitative research. In particular, there is a lacuna within the literature regarding how to specifically differentiate or appropriately adapt qualitative methods to support access. An additional lack of guidance regarding the selection of methods and planning of research is also an issue. Drawing from a transformative perspective, this paper proposes adopting Universal Design for Learning (UDL) principles to guide researchers in in how to differentiate the planning, designing, and conduct of research with participants with disabilities presenting with complex communication profiles. While UDL is not being proposed as an alternative to existing research methodologies, its principles provide a framework for researchers to select from existing methods or approaches in a flexible manner depending on the profile of participants they will be working with. A range of existing approaches and methods are discussed with examples that illustrate how they have been used to support participation and inclusion within qualitative research studies.","PeriodicalId":48220,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Qualitative Methods","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Qualitative Methods","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069221146992","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Recent decades have seen an increase in the use of qualitative research methods within disability research, often seeking to include the voices of individuals with disabilities in research informing policy and service provision. However, such cohorts of participants often present with diverse communication profiles, leading to negative assumptions about their capacity to participate in traditionally common forms of qualitative data collection, such as interviews or focus groups. This effectively marginalises them from participating in research relevant to their lives and social inclusion. The current paper argues that, despite the existence of a range of participatory methods, there remain barriers across methodological approaches to the inclusion of participants with complex profiles within qualitative research. In particular, there is a lacuna within the literature regarding how to specifically differentiate or appropriately adapt qualitative methods to support access. An additional lack of guidance regarding the selection of methods and planning of research is also an issue. Drawing from a transformative perspective, this paper proposes adopting Universal Design for Learning (UDL) principles to guide researchers in in how to differentiate the planning, designing, and conduct of research with participants with disabilities presenting with complex communication profiles. While UDL is not being proposed as an alternative to existing research methodologies, its principles provide a framework for researchers to select from existing methods or approaches in a flexible manner depending on the profile of participants they will be working with. A range of existing approaches and methods are discussed with examples that illustrate how they have been used to support participation and inclusion within qualitative research studies.
转化包容:区分定性研究方法,支持具有复杂沟通或认知特征的个人参与
近几十年来,在残疾研究中越来越多地使用定性研究方法,通常寻求将残疾人的声音纳入研究,为政策和服务提供信息。然而,这样的参与者群体往往呈现出不同的通信概况,导致对他们参与传统上常见的定性数据收集形式(如访谈或焦点小组)的能力的消极假设。这实际上使他们无法参与与他们的生活和社会包容有关的研究。本文认为,尽管存在一系列参与性方法,但在定性研究中纳入具有复杂概况的参与者的方法方法上仍然存在障碍。特别是,关于如何具体区分或适当调整定性方法以支持获取,文献中存在空白。另外,缺乏关于方法选择和研究规划的指导也是一个问题。从变革的角度出发,本文建议采用通用学习设计(UDL)原则来指导研究人员如何区分具有复杂沟通特征的残疾参与者的研究规划、设计和实施。虽然UDL没有被提议作为现有研究方法的替代方案,但它的原则为研究人员提供了一个框架,可以根据他们将要与之合作的参与者的概况,灵活地从现有方法或方法中进行选择。讨论了一系列现有的方法和方法,并举例说明了如何使用它们来支持定性研究中的参与和包容。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
International Journal of Qualitative Methods
International Journal of Qualitative Methods SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
11.10%
发文量
139
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal Highlights Impact Factor: 5.4 Ranked 5/110 in Social Sciences, Interdisciplinary – SSCI Indexed In: Clarivate Analytics: Social Science Citation Index, the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), and Scopus Launched In: 2002 Publication is subject to payment of an article processing charge (APC) Submit here International Journal of Qualitative Methods (IJQM) is a peer-reviewed open access journal which focuses on methodological advances, innovations, and insights in qualitative or mixed methods studies. Please see the Aims and Scope tab for further information.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信