Search

Inclusive research has gained momentum internationally. However important critiques of this approach query whether inclusive research reinforces perceptions of deficit and contribute to exclusionary practices. This paper presents a reflection on the practices within an inclusive research group over the past decade, with a focus on decision making and support. The authors used thematic analysis to critically review minutes, workshop presentations and research reports. The findings indicate a shift in how the group works together; moving away from being guided by university supporters in the early years towards increased participation in decision making and ownership of the group's agenda by self-advocates over time although balanced collaboration across all members continues to be challenging. The article explains how the inclusive approach used by the group enabled self-advocates to not only conduct research, but to also critically review their own work. Research done together with people with learning disabilities, inclusive research, has become known worldwide. Some people wonder if teams that say they are inclusive are not really treating people as equal partners. Our group wanted to reply to these key issues as we think about how we work together. To do this, we looked at our meeting notes and agendas, reports, and training presentations over the past ten years. We looked at how we make decisions and the support we get. The group found that self-advocates and supporters now work as full partners. University supporters made decisions before. Now self-advocates decide the research topics, methods, and the report. In this article we explain how we work together and also what we think about the work we do. Even though we are happy with the way we work, we still struggle with how much work we all do. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While internet use continues to increase amongst the general population, in comparison, adults with intellectual disabilities are still less likely to access the Internet and benefit from the opportunities it can offer. Non-intellectual disability perspectives and assumptions, which often view the Internet as a risk for those with intellectual disabilities, are considered over the everyday lived online and well-being experiences of adults with intellectual disabilities. In response, this study interviewed 8 participants with intellectual disabilities using a descriptive phenomenological approach. Seven constituents emerged: internet as a mirror; internet enables visibility and invisibility; internet as liberating; internet meets unmet needs; internet creates an active decision maker and expert; internet as friend and foe; and, the body connects to, and disconnects from, the Internet. The findings gave rise to new perspectives, recommendations, and adds to the existing literature on how to support adults with intellectual disabilities' enjoyable, safe and independent internet use. Participants with intellectual disabilities described feeling unsafe and restricted in their offline lives, but online they often felt safer and that they could do anything. Participants did not view their intellectual disability positively. Online they could keep their disabilities hidden from others, creating a variety of identities (creative, strong, protective and helpful) that they felt represented them more accurately. When the internet was described as a positive resource in life, this was linked to a sense of well-being with an identity emphasis. Additionally, findings point to examples of well-being in spatial, embodied, mood, sense of belonging with others and temporal ways. This study highlights how danger was negotiated by people with intellectual disabilities in similar ways to dangers in everyday life and how these skills are transferable to offline and online worlds. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article discusses 'special observation', a practice used in inpatient units and in mental health and learning disability services. I present some perspectives on this practice from women detained on locked wards, and staff members. Despite the many valid criticisms, I show that constant observations can be used as a way to harness engagement and to improve relationships between staff and residents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]