Embedding intersectionality and reflexivity in research: doing accessible and inclusive research with persons with disabilities

Abstract

This article explores challenges and implications for researchers interested in embedding accessible and inclusive practices in research and global development initiatives. The author’s experiences conducting research, and lessons learned from the ‘(Re)Building Inclusive Societies: Critical Reflections on Disability and Global Development’ research project and conference, in combination with a survey of the literature regarding intersectionality, feminist reflexivity, disability theory and research in the global context, lead to a presentation of considerations and suggested strategies for researchers interested in developing a praxis that supports accessible and inclusive research with persons with disabilities.

Keywords:

• Inclusive research
• inclusion and access
• feminist methodology
• social model
• feminist disability studies
• global disability studies

Acknowledgements

I thank all reviewers for their thoughtful, supportive and constructive critique of the submitted draft of this work, with special thanks to Susan Manning, Kristi Kenyon and Tim Verney for their comments and feedback on earlier versions of this article.

Notes

1. See Walmsley and Johnson, “Inclusive Research;” and Nind, What is Inclusive Research?

2. See de Bruin, “Conceptualizing Research;” Oliver, “Changing the Social Relations;” and Vehmas, Kristiansen, and Shakespeare, “Unavoidable Alliances.”

3. Vehmas, Kristiansen and Shakespeare, “Unavoidable Alliances”, 2, 3. See also Davis, “Introduction.”

4. Meekosha, “Decolonising Disability,” 667, 668. See also Grech, “Decolonising Eurocentric.”

5. See Oliver, “Changing the Social Relations.”

6. Grech, “Decolonising Eurocentric,” 6, 7.

7. Vehmas, Kristiansen and Shakespeare, “Unavoidable Alliances,” 12.

8. Ibid., 1–3.

9. Davis, “Introduction,” 1.

10. Ibid., 2, 3.

11. Ibid., 3.

12. Vehmas, Kristiansen and Shakespeare, “Unavoidable Alliances,” 2.

13. Ibid.

14. Kafer, Feminist, Queer, Crip, 2, 4, 5.

15. Morris, Pride against Prejudice, 118.

16. Oliver, “Changing the Social Relations.”

17. Walmsley and The Central England People First Project Team, “Telling the History,” 34, 35.

18. Walmsley and Johnson, “Inclusive Research,” 59, 60.

19. Bê, “Feminism and Disability,” 365.

20. Garland-Thomson, “Redrawing the Boundaries,” 583; and Vernon, “Reflexivity.”

21. Bê, “Feminism and Disability,” 365, 366.

22. Stienstra, “Race/Ethnicity and Disability” and “Intersection of Disability.”

23. Hankivsky, “Rethinking Care Ethics,” 260, 261.

24. Stienstra, “Lost without Way-finders.”

25. WHO and World Bank, World Report on Disability.

26. Connell, “Southern Bodies and Disability.”

27. Berghs, “Radicalising Disability,” 747.

28. Stienstra and Ashcroft, “Voyaging on the Seas,” 194.

29. Manning and Acker-Verney, Implicating Disability; Acker-Verney, Johnson, and Manning, “Intersectionality and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities” post on the Centre for International Policy Studies blog (http://www.cips-cepi.ca/blog/).

30. Hurd, “Process, Content and Feminist Reflexivity,” 197.

31. Ahmed, Hundt, and Blackburn, “Issues of Gender,” 468.

32. Hurd, “Process, Content and Feminist Reflexivity,” 197; and Jorgenson, “Reflexivity in Feminist Research,” 115.

33. McCabe and Holmes, “Reflexivity, Critical Qualitative Research,” 1521; Hurd, “Process, Content and Feminist Reflexivity,” 196; and Yakushko et al., “Insider Outsider.”

34. McCabe and Holmes, “Reflexivity, Critical Qualitative Research,” 1520.

35. Hurd, “Process, Content and Feminist Reflexivity,” 196.

36. Ibid., 197–200.

37. Ibid., 202.

38. For more detailed information on the (Re)Building Inclusive Societies research project and conference, including research questions and a conference summary, please see other articles in this issue and the project website: www.msvu.ca/dgd.

39. FemNorthNet and DAWN Canada, Diversity through Inclusive Practice.

40. I recognise that I am only one of many researchers with disability-related needs that require support and planning. At the same time, I suggest privileging the circumstances of participants in recognition of power imbalance inherent in research relationships.

41. For more on ethical considerations like this, see Aldridge, “Working with Vulnerable Groups.”

42. For more information on the conference including preparing for access and inclusion, see www.msvu.ca/dgd.