Threats to valuing diverse voices in public debates about disability. A case study from social mediaFootnote

* Accepted under the editorship of Dr. Chris Fyffe, Associate Editor, Research and Practice in Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities

*

References

• Anderson, S., & Bigby, C. (2017). Self‐advocacy as a means to positive identities for people with intellectual disability: ‘We just help them, be them really’. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 30(1), 109–120.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bigby, C., & Frawley, P. (2010). Reflections on doing inclusive research in the “Making Life Good in the Community” study. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 35(2), 53–61.
   Google Scholar
• Bigby, C., Frawley, P., & Ramcharan, P. (2014). Conceptualizing inclusive research with people with intellectual disability. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 27(1), 3–12.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bratteteig, T., & Wagner, I. (2012). Disentangling power and decision-making in participatory design. In Proceedings of the 12th Participatory Design Conference: Research Papers-Volume 1, 41–50. Association for Computing Machinery, Denmark.
   Google Scholar
• Brooks, J., McCluskey, S., Turley, E., & King, N. (2015). The utility of template analysis in qualitative psychology research. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 12(2), 202–222.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chappell, A. L. (2000). Emergence of participatory methodology in learning difficulty research: Understanding the context. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28(1), 38–43. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1468-3156.2000.00004.x
   Google Scholar
• Chinn, D., & Pelletier, C. (2020). Deconstructing the co-production ideal: Dilemmas of knowledge and representation in a co-design project with people with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 45(4), 326–336. https://doi.org/10.3109/13668250.2020.1795820
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conder, J., Milner, P., & Mirfin‐Veitch, B. (2011). Reflections on a participatory project: The rewards and challenges for the lead researchers. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 36(1), 39–48.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crockett, M. J. (2017). Moral outrage in the digital age. Nature Human Behaviour, 1(11), 769–771. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0213-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crowther, N. (2007). Nothing without us or nothing about us? Disability & Society, 22(7), 791–794. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687590701659642
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dowse, L. (2009). ‘It's like being in a zoo.’ Researching with people with intellectual disability. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 9(3), 141–153. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-3802.2009.01131.x
   Google Scholar
• Funnell, A. (Host). (2021, May 2), The power of storytelling, a cautionary tale [Audio podcast episode]. In Future Tense. ABC. https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/futuretense/storytelling/13511808.
   Google Scholar
• Golder, S., & Macy, M. (2015). Introduction. In Y. Mejova, I. Weber, & M. Macy (Eds.), Twitter: A digital socioscope. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Goodley, D., & Moore, M. (2000). Doing disability research: Activist lives and the academy. Disability & Society, 15(6), 861–882. https://doi.org/10.1080/713662013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harrison, L., Johnson, K., Hiller, L., & Strong, R. (2001). “Nothing about us without us”: The ideals and realities of participatory action research with people with an intellectual disability. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 3(2), 56–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/15017410109510776
   Google Scholar
• Hutchens, G. (2018). Jordan Steele-John breaks down as he pleads for disability inquiry. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/sep/19/jordon-steele-john-breaks-down-as-he-pleads-for-disability-inquiry
   Google Scholar
• Kiernan, C. (1999). Participation in research by people with learning disability: Origins and issues. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27(2), 43–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-3156.1999.tb00084.x
   Google Scholar
• Liddiard, K., Runswick‐Cole, K., Goodley, D., Whitney, S., Vogelmann, E., & Watts, M., L. (2019). “I was excited by the idea of a project that focuses on those unasked questions” co‐producing disability research with disabled young people. Children & Society, 33(2), 154–167. https://doi.org/10.1111/chso.12308
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• New South Wales Council of Social Service. (2017). Fair deal forum. Principles of co-design. New South Wales Council of Social Service.
   Google Scholar
• Nind, M. (2011). Participatory data analysis: A step too far. Qualitative Research, 11(4), 349–363. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794111404310
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oliver, M. (2019). Activism and the academy: Losing the ideological and material battles. Disability & Society, 34(7–8), 1028–1033. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2019.1612637
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oliver, M., & Barnes, C. (2008). Talking about us without us? A response to Neil Crowther. Disability & Society, 23(4), 397–399.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raman, S., & French, T. (2021). Enabling genuine participation in co-design with young people with learning disabilities. CoDesign. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2021.1877728
   Google Scholar
• Ramcharan, P., Grant, G., & Flynn, M. (2004). Emancipatory and participatory research: How far have we come? In E. Emerson, C. Hatton, T. Thompson, & T. Parmenter (Eds.), The international handbook of applied research in intellectual disabilities (pp. 83–111). John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Rivers, C., Lewis, B., & Marmagas, S. (2013). A framework for ethical use of Twitter for public health research. Proceedings of the American Public Health Association Conference, Boston, MA.
   Google Scholar
• Rivers, C. M., & Lewis, B. L. (2014). Ethical research standards in a world of big data. F1000Research, 3, 38. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.3-38.v2
   Google Scholar
• Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability. (2021). About us. https://disability.royalcommission.gov.au/about/Pages/About-us.aspx
   Google Scholar
• Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability. (2019a). Transcript: public hearing 3, Melbourne. https://disability.royalcommission.gov.au/hearings/Pages/hearings/2019/melbourne-hearing.aspx
   Google Scholar
• Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability. (2019b). First public sitting transcript. https://disability.royalcommission.gov.au/publications/first-public-sitting-transcript
   Google Scholar
• Salmon, N., Barry, A., & Hutchins, E. (2018). Inclusive research: An Irish perspective. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 46(4), 268–277. https://doi.org/10.1111/bld.12247
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tjandra, J. (2021). From fact finding to truth-telling: An analysis of the changing functions of Commonwealth Royal Commissions. University of New South Wales Law Journal. Advance online publication. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3856877
   Google Scholar
• Walmsley, J. (2004). Inclusive learning disability research: The (nondisabled) researcher's role. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32(2), 65–71. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-3156.2004.00281.x
   Google Scholar
• Walmsley, J., Strnadová, I., & Johnson, K. (2018). The added value of inclusive research. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 31(5), 751–759. https://doi.org/10.1111/jar.12431
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar