Advertisement

Accessible Research: Lowering Barriers to Participation

  • Daniela Rudloff
Chapter

Abstract

In this chapter, I aim to provide a review and practical guidance on making research participation accessible by lowering barriers to participation. I outline how barriers to participation constitute barriers to representation. This is at odds with our ethos as qualitative researchers and there are strong ethical and methodological arguments for improving access to research participation. Individual sections discuss possible accommodations and adjustments throughout the research process, from the planning phase, to approaching and recruiting participants, preparing and presenting material, general communication with participants, up to presenting and disseminating research findings. I conclude by stressing that accessible research is necessary, possible and productive.

Keywords

Accessible research Participation Research process 

References

  1. Abberley, P. (1992). Counting Us Out: A Discussion of the OPCS Disability Surveys. Disability, Handicap & Society, 7(2), 139–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barrett, J., & Kirk, S. (2000). Running Focus Groups with Elderly and Disabled Elderly Participants. Applied Ergonomics, 31(6), 621–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Belfrage, S. (2016). Exploitative, Irresistible, and Coercive Offers: Why Research Participants Should Be Paid Well or Not at All. Journal of Global Ethics, 12(1), 69–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bentley, J. P., & Thacker, P. G. (2004). The Influence of Risk and Monetary Payment on the Research Participation Decision Making Process. Journal of Medical Ethics, 30(3), 293–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bigham, J. P., Brady, E. L., Gleason, C., Guo, A., & Shamma, D. A. (2016). An Uninteresting Tour Through Why Our Research Papers Aren’t Accessible. Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems – CHI EA ’16, San Jose, 621–631.Google Scholar
  7. Brady, E., Zhong, Y., & Bigham, J. P. (2015). Creating Accessible PDFs for Conference Proceedings. Proceedings of the 12th Web for All Conference on – W4A ’15, Florence, 1–4.Google Scholar
  8. British Academy of Management. (2013). The British Academy of Management’s Code of Ethics and Best Practice. London: BAM.Google Scholar
  9. British Sociological Association. (2006). Statement of Ethical Practice for the British Sociological Association–Visual Sociology Group. Durham: BSA.Google Scholar
  10. Cheyns, E. (2014). Making ‘Minority Voices’ Heard in Transnational Roundtables: The Role of Local NGOs in Reintroducing Justice and Attachments. Agriculture and Human Values, 31(3), 439–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Couper, M. P., Singer, E., & Tourangeau, R. (2003). Understanding the Effects of Audio-CASI on Self-Reports of Sensitive Behavior. Public Opinion Quarterly, 67(3), 385–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Drümmer, O., & Chang, B. (2014). PDF/UA in a Nutshell: Accessible Documents with PDF https://www.pdfa.org/wp-content/until2016_uploads/2013/08/PDFUA-in-a-Nutshell-PDFUA.pdf. Last accessed March 31, 2017.
  13. Easton, C. (2013). An Examination of the Internet’s Development as a Disabling Environment in the Context of the Social Model of Disability and Anti-Discrimination Legislation in the UK and USA. Universal Access in the Information Society, 12(1), 105–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Economic and Social Research Council. (2010). Guidance Note for Researchers and Evaluators of Social Sciences and Humanities Research. http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/fp7/89867/Social-sciences-humanities_en.pdf. Last accessed 13 Sept 2017.
  15. Farmer, M., & Macleod, F. (2011). Involving Disabled People in Social Research. Office for Disability Issues.Google Scholar
  16. Garbutt, R. (2009). Is There a Place within Academic Journals for Articles Presented in an Accessible Format? Disability & Society, 24(3), 357–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gradišar, M., Humar, I., & Turk, T. (2007). The Legibility of Colored Web Page Texts. Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Technology Interfaces, ITI, Cavtat, 233–238.Google Scholar
  18. Greco, M., Stucchi, N., Zavagno, D., & Marino, B. (2008). On the Portability of Computer-Generated Presentations: The Effect of Text-Background Color Combinations on Text Legibility. Human Factors, 50(5), 821–833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hammel, J., Magasi, S., Heinemann, A., Gray, D. B., Stark, S., Kisala, P., Carlozzi, N. E., Tulsky, D., Garcia, S. F., & Hahn, E. E. (2015). Environmental Barriers and Supports to Everyday Participation: A Qualitative Insider Perspective From People with Disabilities. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 96, 578–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Head, E. (2009). The Ethics and Implications of Paying Participants in Qualitative Research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 12(4), 335–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jones, M. K. (2016). Disability and Perceptions of Work and Management. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 54(1), 83–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kavanagh, A. M., Krnjacki, L., Aitken, Z., Lamontagne, A. D., Beer, A., Baker, E., & Bentley, R. (2015). Intersections between Disability, Type of Impairment, Gender and Socio-Economic Disadvantage in a Nationally Representative Sample of 33,101 Working-Aged Australians. Disability and Health Journal, 8(2), 191–199. Elsevier Inc.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kroll, T. (2011). Designing Mixed Methods Studies in Health-Related Research with People with Disabilities. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 5(1), 64–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lazar, J., Allen, A., Kleinman, J., & Malarkey, C. (2007). What Frustrates Screen Reader Users on the Web: A Study of 100 Blind Users. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 22(3), 247–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Leeuw, Edith de, Hox, J., & Kef, S. (2003). Computer-Assisted Self-Interviewing Tailored for Special Populations and Topics. Field Methods, 15(3), 223–251.Google Scholar
  26. Lockyer, S. (2015). ‘It’s Really Scared of Disability’: Disabled Comedians’ Perspectives of the British Television Comedy Industry. The Journal of Popular Television, 3(2), 179–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lyons, V., & Fitzgerald, M. (2004). Humor in Autism and Asperger Syndrome. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 34(5), 521–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McDonald, K. E., & Keys, C. B. (2008). How the Powerful Decide: Access to Research Participation by Those at the Margins. American Journal of Community Psychology, 42(1–2), 79–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McDonald, K. E., Keys, C. B., & Balcazar, F. E. (2007). Disability, Race/Ethnicity and Gender: Themes of Cultural Oppression, Acts of Individual Resistance. American Journal of Community Psychology, 39(1–2), 145–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mik-Meyer, N. (2015). Gender and Disability: Feminizing Male Employees with Visible Impairments in Danish Work Organizations. Gender, Work and Organization, 22(6), 579–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mik-Meyer, N. (2016). Disability and ’Care: Managers, Employees and Colleagues with Impairments Negotiating the Social Order of Disability. Work, Employment & Society, 30(6), 1–16.Google Scholar
  32. National Union of British Sign Language Interpreters. (2017). Freelance Fees for Interpreting Engagements for BSL/English Interpreters. Accessed March 28. http://www.nubsli.com/guidance/interpreter-fees/.
  33. Nind, M. (2008). Learning Difficulties and Social Class: Exploring the Intersection through Family Narratives. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 18(2), 87–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nind, M., & Vinha, H. (2012). Doing Research Well? Report of the Study: Quality and Capacity in Inclusive Research with People with Learning Disabilities. https://www.southampton.ac.uk/assets/imported/transforms/contentblock/UsefulDownloads_Download/97706C004C4F4E68A8B54DB90EE0977D/full_report_doing_research.pdf Last accessed March 30, 2017.
  35. Nind, M., & Vinha, H. (2013). Methodological Review Paper. Practical Considerations in Doing Research Inclusively and Doing It Well: Lessons for Inclusive Researchers. National Centre for Research Methods: Methodological Review Paper. http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/3187/1/Nind_practical_considerations_in_doing_research_inclusively.pdf. Last accessed 30 Mar 2017.
  36. Office for National Statistics. (2014). Official Statistics: Disability Facts and Figures. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/disability-facts-and-figures/disability-facts-and-figures. Last accessed September 13, 2017.
  37. Olkin, R. (2004). Making Research Accessible to Participants with Disabilities. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 32, 332–343.Google Scholar
  38. Parsons, J. A., Baum, S., & Johnson, T. P. (2000). Inclusion of Disabled Populations in Social Surveys: Reviews and Recommendations. Chicago: Survey Research Laboratory, University of Illinois for the National Center for Health Statistics.Google Scholar
  39. Petersen, A. J. (2012). Imagining the Possibilities: Qualitative Inquiry at the Intersections of Race, Gender, Disability, and Class. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 25(6), 801–818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Postle, K., Wright, P., & Beresford, P. (2005). Older People’s Participation in Political Activity—making Their Voices Heard: A Potential Support Role for Welfare Professionals in Countering Ageism and Social Exclusion. Practice, 17(3), 173–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Reid, P. T. (1993). Poor Women in Psychological Research: Shut Up and Shut Out. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 17(2), 133–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Samson, A. C., & Hegenloh, M. (2010). Stimulus Characteristics Affect Humor Processing in Individuals with Asperger Syndrome. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 40(4), 438–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schroedel, J. G. (1984). Analyzing Surveys on Deaf Adults: Implications for Survey Research on Persons with Disabilities. Social Science and Medicine, 19(6), 619–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Turner, M., & Beresford, P. (2005). User Controlled Research: Its Meanings and Potential. Commissioned Report for INVOLVE.Google Scholar
  45. UKAAF. (2012). Creating Clear Print and Large Print Documents. http://www.ukaaf.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/G003-UKAAF-Creating-clear-print-and-large-print-documents.pdf. Last Accessed 30 Mar 2017.
  46. Ville, I., & Ravaud, J. F. (1998). Work Values: A Comparison of Non-Disabled Persons with Persons with Paraplegia. Disability and Rehabilitation, 20(4), 127–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wellcome Trust. (2017). Guidelines on Good Research Practice. https://wellcome.ac.uk/funding/managinggrant/guidelines-good-research-practice. Last accessed March 30, 2017.
  48. Whitney, G. (2006). Enabling People with Sensory Impairments to Participate Effectively in Research. Universal Access in the Information Society, 5(3), 287–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wilson, E., Campain, R., Moore, M., Hagiliassis, N., McGillivray, J., Gottliebson, D., Bink, M., Caldwell, M., Cummins, B., & Graffam, J. (2013). An Accessible Survey Method: Increasing the Participation of People with a Disability in Large Sample Social Research. Telecommunications Journal of Australia, 63(2), 24.1–24.13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wilton, R. D. (2008). Workers with Disabilities and the Challenges of Emotional Labour. Disability & Society, 23(February 2015), 361–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniela Rudloff
    • 1
  1. 1.University of LeicesterLeicesterUK

Personalised recommendations