“You’ve got to either adapt to us or get out of the field”: A qualitative analysis of people with intellectual disabilities’ perspectives on journalism and news media
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online September, 2025
“You’ve got to either adapt to us or get out of the field”: A qualitative analysis of people with intellectual disabilities’ perspectives on journalism and news media
There has been limited attention to the role of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (I/DD) as contributors and consumers of news media. In a series of focus groups conducted with people with I/DD about news media, we found respondents had a diverse set of topical interests but generally negative perceptions of the news. They also faced a number of infrastructural, attitudinal, and cognitive barriers to accessing media. Additionally, participants expressed a desire for more positive representation of I/DD in news media, as well as more education and training for journalists. We conclude by considering news media engagement as an aspect of civic participation and make several recommendations for applications and future directions.
AndersonSAraten-BergmanTSteelG (2023) Adults with intellectual disabilities as users of social media: A scoping review. British Journal of Learning Disabilities51(4): 544–564.
BillawallaAWolbringG (2014) Analyzing the discourse surrounding autism in the New York Times using an ableism lens. Disability Studies Quarterly34(1).
4.
BraunVClarkeV (2012) Thematic analysis. In: CooperHCamicPMLongDL, et al. (eds) APA Handbook of Research Methods in Psychology, Vol: 2. Research Designs: Quantitative, Qualitative, Neuropsychological, and Biological. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, pp.57–71.
5.
BrewisJ (2014) The ethics of researching friends: On convenience sampling in qualitative management and organizational studies. British Journal of Management25(4): 849–862.
6.
BrownMMcCannE (2021) Homelessness and people with intellectual disabilities: A systematic review of the international research evidence. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disability34: 390–401.
7.
CambridgePForrester-JonesR (2003) Using individualized communication for interviewing people with intellectual disability: A case study of user-centered research. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability28: 5–23.
8.
ChadwickDWessonCFullwoodC (2013) Internet access by people with intellectual disabilities: Inequalities and opportunities. Future Internet5: 376–397.
9.
DavyL (2019) Between an ethic of care and an ethic of autonomy: Negotiating relational autonomy, disability, and dependency. Angelaki: Journal of Theoretical Humanities24: 101–114.
10.
DiazMABickenbachJESabariegoCBernardRM (2024) Qualitative methodological approaches involving participants with intellectual disabilities: Scoping review of literature exploring death and dying. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities37(2): e13119.
11.
EllcessorEHagoodMKirkpatrickB (2017) Introduction: Toward a disability media studies, in EllcessorEKirkpatrickB (eds) Disability Media Studies. New York, NY: NYU Press, pp.1–28.
12.
EllcessorEKirkpatrickB (eds) (2017) Disability Media Studies. New York, NY: NYU Press.
13.
EllisKGogginGHallerB, et al. (eds) (2020) The Routledge Companion to Disability and Media. New York, NY: Routledge.
FrickerM (2007) Epistemic Injustice: Power and Ethics of Knowing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
16.
GogginGEllisKHallerB, et al. (2020) Introduction: Disability and media—An emergent field. In: EllisKGogginGHallerB, et al. (eds) The Routledge Companion to Disability and Media. New York, NY: Routledge, pp.1–9.
17.
GrueJ (2016) The problem with inspiration porn: A tentative definition and a provisional critique. Disability & Society31(6): 838–849.
18.
GuestGNameyEMcKennaK (2017) How many focus groups are enough? Building an evidence base for nonprobability sample sizes. Field Methods29(1): 3–22.
19.
HallerB (2010) Representing Disability in an Ableist World: Essays on Mass Media. Louisville, Kentucky: Avocado Press.
20.
HoltonAFarrellLFudgeJ (2014) A threatening space? Stigmatization and the framing of autism in the news. Communication Studies65(2): 189–207.
21.
JonesCTCollinsKZbitnewA (2021) Accessibility as aesthetic in broadcast media: Critical access theory and disability justice as project-based learning. Journalism and Mass Communication Educator77(1): 24–42.
22.
KruegerCvan HeumanLvan den HelderC (2024) Self-advocacy in inclusive research. Social Sciences13(3): 134.
23.
KruegerRACaseyMA (2009) Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research. London: Sage.
24.
LadauE (2021) Demystifying Disability: What to Know, What to Say, and How to Be an Ally. New York, NY: Ten Speed Press.
25.
LiamputtongP (2010) Focus Group Methodology: Principles and Practices. London: Sage Publications.
26.
LlewellynPNorthwayR (2008) The views and experiences of people with intellectual disabilities concerning advocacy. Journal of Intellectual Disabilities12(3): 213–228.
27.
MietolaRMiettinenSVehmasS (2017) Voiceless subjects? Research ethics and persons with profound intellectual disabilities. International Journal of Social Research Methodology20(3): 263–274.
28.
MonteleoneRSilvermanARaghanvendranB (2022) Intellectual disability and epistemic justice in journalism: Reflections from a pilot project. Canadian Journal of Disability Studies11(3): 129–153.
29.
National Center for Disability and Journalism (2021) Disability language style guide. Available at: https://ncdj.org/style-guide (accessed 12 June 2024).
30.
National Council on Disability (2018) Beyond guardianship: Toward alternatives that promote greater self-determination. Report, 22 March.
31.
PerryJ (2004) Interviewing people with intellectual disabilities. In: EmersonEHattonCThompsonT, et al. (eds) The International Handbook of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities. London: Wiley, pp.115–131.
32.
RugohoT (2024) Disability and Media – An African Perspective. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
33.
Safta-ZechariaL (2018) The infantilization of intellectual disability and political inclusion: A pedagogical approach. Journal of Education Sciences2(38): 104–112.
34.
SchmidtKCS (2019) Epistemic injustice and epistemic participation. PhD Dissertation, Washington University in St. Louis, USA.
WhiteheadDWhiteheadL (2016) Sampling data and data collection in qualitative research. In: SchneiderZWhiteheadD (eds) Nursing and Midwifery Research: Methods and Appraisal for Evidence-Based Practice, 5th ed.London: Elsevier, pp.111–127.
38.
WilkinsonPMcGillP (2009) Representation of people with intellectual disabilities in 1983 and 2001. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities22(1): 65–76.
39.
WilliamsP (2019) ‘It all sounds very interesting, but we’re just too busy!’: Exploring why ‘gatekeepers’ decline access to potential research participants with learning disabilities. European Journal of Special Needs Education35(1): 1–14.
