Voiceless subjects? Research ethics and persons with profound intellectual disabilities

References

• Atkinson, P. (2015). For Ethnography. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Barnes, C. (2003). What a difference a decade makes: Reflections on doing ‘emancipatory’ disability research. Disability & Society, 18, 3–17.10.1080/713662197
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barton, L. (1999). Developing an emancipatory research agenda: Possibilities and dilemmas. In P. Clough & L. Barton (Eds.), Articulating with Difficulty: Research and voices in inclusive education (pp. 29–39). London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Barton, L. (2005). Emancipatory research and disabled people: Some observations and questions. Educational Review, 57, 317–327.10.1080/00131910500149325
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bhaskar, R., & Danermark, B. (2006). Metatheory, interdisciplinarity and disability research: A critical realist perspective. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 8, 278–297.10.1080/15017410600914329
   Google Scholar
• Boxall, K., & Ralph, S. (2010). Research ethics committees and the benefits of involving people with profound and multiple learning disabilities in research. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 173–180.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cameron, L., & Murphy, J. (2007). Obtaining consent to participate in research: The issues involved in including people with a range of learning and communication disabilities. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 113–120.10.1111/bld.2007.35.issue-2
   Google Scholar
• Chappell, A.-L. (1998). Still out in the cold: People with learning difficulties and the social model of disability. In T. Shakespeare (Ed.), The Disability Reader (pp. 211–220). London: Continuum.
   Google Scholar
• Christensen, P., & Prout, A. (2002). Working with ethical symmetry in social research with children. Childhood, 9, 477–497.10.1177/0907568202009004007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clement, T., & Bigby, C. (2013). Ethical challenges in researching in group homes for people with severe learning disabilities: shifting the balance of power. Disability & Society, 28, 486–499.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cluley, V. (2016). Using photovoice to include people with profound and multiple learning disabilities in inclusive research. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45, 39–46. doi:10.1111/bld.12174
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cocks, A. J. (2006). The ethical maze: Finding an inclusive path towards gaining children’s agreement to research participation. Childhood, 13, 247–266.10.1177/0907568206062942
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davis, J., Watson, N., & Cunningham-Burley, S. (2008) Disabled children, ethnography and unspoken understandings. The collaborative construction of diverse identities. In P. Christensen & A. James (Eds.), Research with children. Perspectives and practices (2nd ed., pp. 220–218). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Goodley, D. (2014). Dis/ability studies. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Guidelines for funding applications to undertake disability research. (1992). Disability & Society 7, 279–280.
   Google Scholar
• Hammersley, M. (2000). Taking sides in social research: Essays on partisanship and bias. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Jackson, A. Y., & Mazzei, L. A. (Eds.). (2009). Voice in qualitative inquiry. Challenging conventional, interpretive and critical conceptions in qualitative research. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Kittay, E. F. (1999). Love’s labor. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Kittay, E. F. (2005). At the margins of moral personhood. Ethics, 116, 100–131.10.1086/454366
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kittay, E. F. (2010). The personal is philosophical is political: A philosopher and mother of a cognitively disabled person sends notes from the battlefield. In E. F. Kittay, & L. Carlson (Eds.), Cognitive disability and its challenge to moral philosophy (pp. 393–413). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.10.1002/9781444322781
   Google Scholar
• Klotz, J. (2004). Sociocultural study of intellectual disability: Moving beyond labelling and social constructionist perspectives. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 93–104.10.1111/bld.2004.32.issue-2
   Google Scholar
• Komulainen, S. (2007). The ambiguity of the child’s ‘voice’ in social research. Childhood, 14, 11–28.10.1177/0907568207068561
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kulick, D., & Rydström, J. (2015). Loneliness and its opposite. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.10.1215/9780822375845
   Google Scholar
• McMahan, J. (2002). The ethics of killing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/0195079981.001.0001
   Google Scholar
• Mietola, R., Berg, P., Hakala, K., Lahelma, E., Lappalainen, S., Salo, U.-M., & Tolonen, T. (2016) Feministinen etnografia kasvatuksen kulttuureita jäljittämässä [Feminist ethnography – tracing educational cultures] Nuorisotutkimus, 34, 4–17.
   Google Scholar
• Murphy, E., & Dingwall, R. (2001). The ethics of ethnography. In P. Atkinson, A. Coffey, S. Delamont, J. Lofland, & L. Lofland (Eds.), Handbook of ethnography (pp. 339–351). London: Sage.10.4135/9781848608337
   Google Scholar
• Nind, M. (2008). Conducting qualitative research with people with learning, communication and other disabilities: Methodological challenges. National Centre for Research Method, NXRM/012,  Southampton.
   Google Scholar
• Nind, M. (2014). What is inclusive research?. London: Blomsbury Academic.
   Google Scholar
• Nussbaum, M. (2006). Frontiers of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Oliver, M. (1990). The politics of disablement. London: Macmillan.10.1007/978-1-349-20895-1
   Google Scholar
• Oliver, M. (1992). Changing the social relations of research production? Disability, Handicap & Society, 7, 101–114.10.1080/02674649266780141
   Google Scholar
• Paju, E. (2013) Lasten Arjen ainekset: Etnografinen tutkimus materiaalisuudesta, ruumiillisuudesta ja toimijuudesta päiväkodissa [Everyday matters of childhood: Ethnographic research on materiality, embodiment and agency in a nursery]. Helsinki: Tutkijaliitto.
   Google Scholar
• Pockney, R. (2006). Friendship of facilitation: People with learning disabilities and their paid carers. Sociological Research Online, 11 http://www.socresonline.org.uk/11/3/pockney.html
   Google Scholar
• Schrock, R. D. (2013). The methodological imperatives of feminist ethnography. Journal of Feminist Scholarship, Issue 5 ( Fall 2013), http://www.jfsonline.org/issue5/articles/schrock/
   Google Scholar
• Seale, J., Nind, M., Tilley, L., & Chapman, R. (2015). Negotiating a third space for participatory research with people with learning disabilities: An examination of boundaries and spatial practices. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 22, 483–497.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shakespeare, T. (2006). Disability rights and wrongs. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Simmons, B., & Watson, D. (2014). The PMLD ambiguity: Articulating the life-worlds of children with profound and multiple learning disabilities. London: Karnac Books.
   Google Scholar
• Singer, P. (1993). Practical ethics (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Skeggs, B. (2001). Feminist ethnography. In P. Atkinson, A. Coffey, S. Delamont, J. Lofland, & L. Lofland (Eds.), Handbook of ethnography (pp. 426–442). London: Sage.10.4135/9781848608337
   Google Scholar
• Stalker, K. (1998). Some ethical and methodological issues in research with people with learning difficulties. Disability & Society, 13, 5–19.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tuffrey-Wijne, I., Bernal, J., & Hollins, S. (2008). Doing research on people with learning disabilities, cancer & dying: Ethics, possibilities and pitfalls. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36, 185–190.10.1111/bld.2008.36.issue-3
   Google Scholar
• Vehmas, S. (2010). The who or what of Steve: Severe cognitive impairment and its implications. In M. Häyry, T. Takala, P. Herissone-Kelly, & G. Árnason (Eds.), Arguments and Analysis in Bioethics (pp. 263–280). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
   Google Scholar
• Vehmas, S., & Curtis, B. (2017). Profound intellectual disability and the bestowment view of moral status. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 26.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vehmas, S., & Mäkelä, P. (2009). The ontology of disability and impairment: A discussion of the natural and social features. In K. Kristiansen, S. Vehmas, & T. Shakespeare (Eds.), Arguing about Disability (pp. 42–56). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Vehmas, S., & Watson, N. (2017). Exploring normativity in disability studies. Disability & Society, 31, 1–16.10.1080/09687599.2015.1120657
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Visweswaran, K. (1994). Fictions of feminist etnography. Minneapolis, MN: Minneapolis University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Vorhaus, J. (2014). Philosophy and profound intellectual disability: Learning from experience. Disability & Society, 29, 611–623.10.1080/09687599.2013.831749
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walmsley, J., & Johnson, K. (2003). Inclusive research with people with learning disabilities: Past, present and futures. Philadelphia, PA: Jessica Kingsley.
   Google Scholar
• Ware, J. (2004). Ascertaining the views of people with profound and multiple learning disabilities. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 175–179.10.1111/bld.2004.32.issue-4
   Google Scholar
• WHO. (1992). The ICD-10 classification of mental and behavioural disorders. Geneva: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Young, I. M. (1997). Intersecting voices: Dilemmas of gender, political philosophy, and policy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar