Journal Aims and Expectations
Welcome to the first issue of Research and Practice in Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (RAPIDD), a journal of the Australasian Society for Intellectual and Developmental Disability, published twice a year by Taylor & Francis. While the primary aim of RAPIDD is to draw out the implications of research for practice and policy, the journal also aims to generate informed debate on contemporary issues that matter to the lives of people with intellectual disabilities and their families. The focus of RAPIDD will not only be on new empirical research in this area, but will also include ideas and commentary about existing studies, the literature, policy, and practice relevant to the field. Everything we publish will aim to inform thinking about the design and delivery of specialist support and mainstream services that facilitate social inclusion and enhance the quality of life of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities.
While people with intellectual and developmental disabilities and the Australian context are the core focus of RAPIDD, comparative perspectives that explore similarities and differences with other countries or other groups of people with disabilities are also of interest. Such comparisons help to draw out both the unique and common issues that confront people with intellectual disabilities and Australasian practitioners.
The journal aims to create a constructive dialogue between the sometimes differing perspectives of managers, practitioners, academics, families, people with intellectual disabilities, advocates, funders, and policymakers. It will provide a space to consider the interface and respective roles of communities, families, and service systems, both disability and mainstream.
Contributing to RAPIDD
Scope of Papers
RAPIDD seeks contributions from all members of its audience – not only academics. It will publish short papers with clear implications for policy or practice. It will accept papers of differing types, some of which are described below and have exemplars in this first issue. All papers will be peer reviewed and should not exceed 4000 words, excluding abstract and references. Papers will be clear, concise, logical, build on existing knowledge, and have a carefully defined purpose. All papers should aim to be original and well argued with the capacity to stimulate debate or be used for advocacy purposes.
One of the goals of the journal is to encourage wider dissemination of relevant practice and academic research. Thus, while issues of style and presentation are important, these can easily be honed during editorial processes. It will be the ideas that matter most. Decisions to publish will take into account questions such as:
Is this an important topic?
Is the piece original?
Is the argument logical?
Does the piece draw together and build on existing knowledge?
Will it stimulate thinking in the field?
Does it have the potential to inform the design and delivery of support that is important for people with intellectual disabilities and their families?
Does it have the potential to inform practices and adjustment of the “mainstream” or greater engagement of people with intellectual disabilities in their own lives?
Not all questions will need to be satisfied in every paper. For example, pieces may summarise existing research in an accessible form and discuss the implications of such research for practice, programs, or policy rather than proposing original ideas. The different types of papers described below are not intended to form a definitive list, and the distinctive characteristics of each type of paper and its format will evolve as the journal develops. These guidelines are intended to orientate authors to the expectations of the editor and reviewers.
Different Types of Papers
Papers may be conceptual pieces, commentaries, reviews of literature or policy, evaluative case studies of programs, original research, or analysis of policy and programs.
Conceptual Papers
Papers of this type will generally start with a key concept or idea. An example in this issue is the paper by Soldatic, van Toorn, Dowse, and Muir (Citation2014), which began with the idea of the potential exclusion of people with complex needs from the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). The conceptual paper by Browning, Bigby, and Douglas (Citation2014) started with an idea about the multiple and often confusing ways in which the concept of supported decision was being used in Australia. Drawing on the literature or practice wisdom, conceptual papers then discuss, review, reinterpret, or reframe ways of thinking about the key concept or idea. Conceptual papers may bring new ideas or theoretical perspectives to the field of intellectual disability, by drawing on theory or frameworks that are not generally used. For example, Rogers’ (Citation2003) theory of the diffusion of innovation may be used to discuss reasons for the low impact of social inclusion policies. A conceptual paper may also present a systematic analysis of a particular theorist or perspective and discuss its importance or application to the field of intellectual disabilities.
Commentary Papers
Similar to conceptual papers, commentaries take as the starting point an idea, issue, or concept. This type of paper is less likely to draw heavily on the literature or theory and more likely to be based on the “expertise” of the writer, which may be as a practitioner, academic, manager, policy commentator, and so on. Commentaries are designed to draw out and clarify major points from another paper or about a specific issue, and present perhaps further contextual information, a counter-argument, or raise new issues. They are concise, informative, and potentially controversial. An example is the commentary paper by Carney (2104), in this issue. Here, Carney uses his expert knowledge of developments in the field of guardianship reform to describe the various projects around Australia about supported decision-making and draws on his knowledge of the literature to raise several key issues about the concept of supported decision-making. Similarly, the commentaries by O’Connor (Citation2014) and Clift (Citation2014) draw on their practice expertise to pick up and illustrate some of the key issues raised from the literature by Soldatic and colleagues (Citation2014) about access to the NDIS by people with complex needs. Iacono (Citation2014) uses her academic expertise in communication to respond to a comment by a South Australian politician and disability advocate and provides a succinct piece about what it means to have complex communication needs. Commentaries on research or conceptual papers published in previous issues of RAPIDD will be accepted if they are submitted in a timely manner.
Concise Reviews of Contemporary Literature and Research Papers
This type of paper can take many forms, from an original, well-defined, systematic review to concise overviews of the literature about a specific concept, idea, or aspect of practice. See Grant and Booth (Citation2009) for an overview of the different types of literature review. The paper by Cuskelly and Gilmore (Citation2014) in this issue is an example of a systematic review. Review papers may rework published research into a more concise form or review a series of related papers or a program of research and discuss its implications for practice or policy. Papers may also review a body of work that is inaccessible to readers, such as research published in another language or written in complex scientific terms. Review papers will be expected to be critically reflective rather than simply descriptive.
Original Research Papers
Original research papers report a systematic investigation of a research question that has involved collection and analysis of empirical data or extracted data from documents or other sources. Such papers should follow the general structure of: background, aims, method, findings, discussion, and implications. Presentation of method and findings should conform to the expectations of the research paradigm used and sufficient details about the method provided for the paper to stand alone. To achieve conciseness, reference can be made to other publications where a more detailed method has been set out. When one part of a larger study is reported, the specific question(s) and subset of the data that are the focus of the paper should be set out, and the paper should stand on its own. This means that unpublished results from another part of a study cannot be reported in a paper's findings. The utility and implications of findings should be clearly drawn out. In this issue, the paper by Dew and colleagues (Citation2014) provides an example of this type of paper, where one part of a larger study has been reported on.
Analysis of Policy and Programs
This type of paper provides an original critical analysis of a particular policy document, broader set of policies, or specific programs that form part of policy implementation. It is important to provide sufficient description of the context, background, or the policy itself to enable the reader to understand the points being made.
Evaluative Case Studies of Programs
Case study papers illustrate important issues in the implementation of policy or practice, or the application of research knowledge to practice. They may be based on the experience of practitioners or managers involved in the program, and data collected for administrative purposes such as number of participants. Alternatively, evaluative case studies may resemble small-scale original research and be based on data that have been systematically collected as part of a program evaluation. A key element of any case study is to provide a description of the context and nature of the “case” as well as what occurred, reflections on the process, and evidence of outcomes. For example, if the case is a program to build social relationships of people with intellectual disabilities, details about where the program was located, its design, and who was involved would be important. Any underpinning theory, research, or policy that informed the development of the program would also be useful to include.
Style
Detailed instructions for authors are provided on the RAPIDD website.Footnote The journal will not adhere rigidly to all aspects of style covered in the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (APA; 6th ed.); however, papers should conform to the APA manual with regard to certain aspects, such as overall structure, in-text citations, and referencing. Spelling should follow the Macquarie Dictionary. Aspects of RAPIDD's in-house style, including the structure of abstracts, levels of headings, keywords, and notes, are outlined on the journal's submission checklist.Footnote
Abstracts
Papers should have abstract of no more than 250 words and include: purpose; design, method, or approach; findings or main points; conclusions; and originality/value. An abstract is not a preview but a concise precis of the paper, which includes all of the major points. Both the title of the paper and the abstract are important in identifying RAPIDD papers in Internet search engines. They should include keywords and avoid obscure but enticing quotes.
Ethical Issues
If papers draw on practice examples or include information about service users or the experiences of people with intellectual disabilities, their families, or staff who provide the relevant services, authors must provide evidence that ethical issues have been considered. In particular, consideration of issues about consent to participate in the collection of any data, the inclusion of individual data in a paper for publication, de-identification and potential identification of participants and organisations. In the case of research conducted through universities, it is expected that approval will have been given by an ethics committee and that conduct reflects the National Health and Medical Research Council's ethical guidelines for research with humans. While this type of approval may not be expected for all papers, particularly smaller studies conducted by practitioners within an organisation, the authors must provide sufficient evidence that issues of consent and potential identification have been considered.
Notes
1. http://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode = rpid20&page = instructions#.U3DU451–Uk
References
- Browning, M., Bigby, C., & Douglas, J. (2014). Supported decision making: Understanding how its conceptual link to legal capacity is influencing the development of practice. Research and Practice in Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 1(1), 34–45.
- Clift, K. (2014). Access to the National Disability Insurance Scheme for people with intellectual disabilities who are involved in the criminal justice system. Research and Practice in Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 1(1), 24–33.
- Cuskelly, M., & Gilmore, L. (2104). Motivation in children with intellectual disabilities. Research and Practice in Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 1(1), 51–59.
- Dew, A., Happ, V., Bulkeley, K., Bundy, A., Lincoln, M., Gallego, G., Brentnall, J., & Vietch, C. (2014). Rural carers of people with disabilities: Making choices to move or to stay. Research and Practice in Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 1(1), 60–70.
- Grant, M., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information and Libraries Journal 26, 91–108.
- O’Connor, M. (2014). The National Disability Insurance Scheme and people with mild intellectual disability: Potential pitfalls for consideration. Research and Practice in Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 1(1), 17–23.
- Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.rogers
- Iacono, T. (2014). What it means to have complex communication needs. Research and Practice in Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 1(1), 82–85.
- Soldatic, K., van Toorn, G., Dowse, L. & Muir, K. (2014). Intellectual disability and complex intersections: Marginalisation under the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Research and Practice in Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 1(1), 6–16.