In this article, I reveal the arguments used to gain ethics approval to do research among persons with disabilities in adult residential care in New Brunswick and the specific ways I planned to act in their best interests. I also discuss the unexpected dilemmas encountered in the field and my efforts to resolve them. These dilemmas included determining the capacity of the persons in care to assent to be interviewed, addressing the propensity for acquiescence, dealing with anonymity and confidentiality issues, finding the optimum contexts for interviews, preparing participants for when I would leave the field, negotiating full disclosure as the mother of an adult with disabilities in long-term care, and ensuring that no persons under the auspices of the Office of the Public Trustee in New Brunswick participated in this research. I conclude that specific efforts should continue to be made to include persons with disabilities in future research.
AllanJ. (2005). Inclusion as an ethical project. In TremainS. (Ed.), Foucault and the government of disability (pp. 281-297). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Retrieved from http://www.lib.unb.ca/eresources/index.php?sub=ebooks
2.
BallS. J. (1994). Education reform: A critical and post-structural approach. Bristol, PA: Open University Press.
3.
BiklenS.MoseleyC. (1988). Are you retarded? No, I’m Catholic: Qualitative methods in the study of people with severe handicaps. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 13, 155-162.
4.
BoothT.BoothW. (1994). The use of depth interviewing with vulnerable subjects: Lessons from a research study of parents with learning difficulties. Social Science and Medicine, 39(3), 415-424.
Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, & Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. (1998). Tri-Council policy statement: Ethical conduct for research involving humans. Retrieved from http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/archives/tcps-eptc/docs/TCPS%20October%202005_E.pdf
7.
Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, & Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. (2010). Tri-Council policy statement: Ethical conduct for research involving humans. Retrieved from http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/pdf/eng/tcps2/TCPS_2_FINAL_Web.pdf
8.
CarlsonL. (2005). Docile bodies, docile minds. Foucauldian reflections on mental retardation. In TremainS. (Ed.), Foucault and the government of disability (pp. 133-152). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Retrieved from http://www.lib.unb.ca/eresources/index.php?sub=ebooks
ClarkL. (1996). Covert participant observation in secure forensic unit. Nursing Times, 92(48), 37-40.
11.
DavisJ.WatsonN.Cunningham-BurleyS. (1999). Learning the lives of disabled children. Developing a reflexive approach. In ChristensenP. M.JamesA. (Eds.), Research with children: Perspectives and practices (pp. 201-224). London: Falmer. Retrieved from http://www.lib.unb.ca/eresources/index.php?sub=ebooks
DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (1994). Introduction: Entering the field of qualitative research. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 1-17). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
DewingJ. (2007). Participatory research. A method for process consent with persons who have dementia. Dementia, 6(1), 11-25. doi:10.1177/147130120707562510.1177/1471301207075625
17.
EllisJ. (1992). Decisions by and for people with mental retardation: Balancing considerations of autonomy and protection. Villanova Law Review, 37, 1779-1809. Retrieved from http://www.lib.unb.ca/eresources/index.php?sub=journal
FieldP. A.MorseJ. M. (1992). Nursing research: The application of qualitative approaches. London: Chapman & Hall.
20.
FinlayW. M. L.TaylorS. J. (2002). Acquiescence in interviews with people who have mental retardation. Mental Retardation, 40(1), 14-29.
21.
FlynnM. (1986) Adults who are mentally handicapped as consumers: Issues and guidelines for interviewing. Journal of Mental Deficiency Research, 30, 369-377.
22.
FoucaultM. (1982). The subject and power. In DreyfusH. L.RabinowP. (Eds.), M. Foucault: Beyond structuralism and hermeneutics (pp. 208-226). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
23.
FoucaultM. (1995). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. New York: Vintage.
24.
FoucaultM.GordonC. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972-1977. New York: Pantheon.
GilbertT. (2004). Involving people with learning disabilities in research: Issues and possibilities. Health and Social Care in the Community, 12(4), 298-308. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2524.2004.00499.x10.1111/j.1365-2524.2004.00499.x
27.
GoodleyD. (1996). Tales of hidden lives: A critical examination of life history research with people who have learning difficulties. Disability & Society, 11(3), 333-348. Retrieved from http://www.lib.unb.ca/eresources/index.php?sub=journals
28.
GoodwinD.PopeC.MortM.SmithA. (2003). Ethics and ethnography: An experiential account. Qualitative Health Research, 13, 567-577. doi:10.1177/104973230225072310.1177/1049732302250723
29.
GubaE. G.LincolnY. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105-117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
30.
GubaE. G.LincolnY. S. (2005). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 191-216). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
HolmesD.KennedyS.PerronA. (2004). The mentally ill and social exclusion: A critical examination of the use of seclusion from the patient’s perspective. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 25(6), 559-578. doi:10.1080/0161284049047210110.1080/01612840490472101
35.
HomanR. (1991). The ethics of social science research. London: Longman.
36.
HubbardG.Backett-MilburnK.KemmerD. (2001). Working with emotion: Issues for the researcher in fieldwork and teamwork. International Journal of Research Methodology, 4(2), 119-137. doi:10.1080/1364557011699210.1080/13645570116992
37.
HughesB. (2005). What can a Foucauldian analysis contribute to disability theory? In TremainS. (Ed.), Foucault and the government of disability (pp. 78-92). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Retrieved from http://www.lib.unb.ca/eresources/index.php?sub=ebooks
KincheloeJ. L.McLarenP. (2005). Rethinking critical theory and qualitative research. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 303-342). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
42.
KnoxM.MokM.ParmenterT. R. (2000). Working with the experts: Collaborative research with people with an intellectual disability. Disability & Society, 15(1), 49-61. doi:10.1080/0968759002576610.1080/09687590025766
43.
KroghK.JohnsonJ. (2006). A life without living: Challenging medical and economic reductionism in home support policy for people with disabilities. In PothierD.DevlinR. (Eds.), Critical disability theory. Essays in philosophy, politics, policy, and law (pp. 151-176). Vancouver, Canada: UBC Press. Retrieved from http://www.lib.unb.ca/eresources/index.php?sub=ebooks
44.
LindseyP. (1994). Assessing the ability of adults with mental retardation to give direct consent for residential placements: A follow-up study for the consent screening interview. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 29, 155-164.
45.
LloydV.GathererA.KalsyS. (2006). Conducting qualitative interview research with people with expressive language difficulties. Qualitative Health Research, 16, 1386-1404. doi:10.1177/104973230629384610.1177/1049732306293846
46.
LugosiP. (2006). Between overt and covert research. Concealment and disclosure in an ethnographic study of commercial hospitality. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(3), 541-561. doi:10.1177/107780040528280110.1177/1077800405282801
47.
MactavishJ. B.MahonM. J.LutfiyyaZ. (2000). I can speak for myself: Involving individuals with intellectual disabilities as research participants. Mental Retardation, 38(3), 216-227.
48.
MarquisR.JacksonR. (2000). Quality of life and quality of service relationships: Experiences of people with disabilities. Disability & Society, 15(3), 411-425. doi:10.1080/0968759005002311410.1080/09687590050023114
49.
MatikkaL. M.VesalaH. T. (1997). Acquiescence in quality-of-life interviews with adults who have mental retardation. Mental Retardation, 35(2), 75-82.
MichalkoR. (2002). The difference that disability makes. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
54.
MilgramS. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view. London: Tavistock.
55.
MinkesJ.TownselyR.WestonC. (1995). Having a voice: Involving people with learning difficulties in research. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 94-97.
MorriseyB. (2007). A study in the delivery of long-term care for adults with disabilities in southern New Brunswick. Master’s Thesis, University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.proxy.hil.unb.ca/docview/304734681
58.
MorrowR. A.BrownD. D. (1994). Critical theory and methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
OrbA.EisenhauerL.WynadenD. (2001). Ethics in qualitative research. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 33(1), 93-96. doi:10.1111/j.1547-5069.2001.00093.x10.1111/j.1547-5069.2001.00093.x
61.
OwensJ. (2007). Liberating voice through narrative methods: The case for an interpretive research approach. Disability & Society, 22(3), 299-313. doi:10.1080/0968759070125961710.1080/09687590701259617
62.
ParkerL.LynnM. (2002). What’s race got to do with it? Critical race theory’s conflicts with and connections to qualitative research methodology and epistemology. Qualitative Inquiry, 8(1), 17-22. doi:10.1177/10778004020080010210.1177/107780040200800102
63.
PattonM. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
64.
PeelN. M.WilsonC. (2008). Frail older people as participants in research. Educational Gerontology, 34(5), 407-417. doi:10.1080/0360127070183597310.1080/03601270701835973
65.
PhtiakaH. (1994). What’s in it for us?International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 7, 155-164.
66.
PothierD.DevlinR. (2006). Introduction: Toward a critical theory of dis-citizenship. In PothierD.DevlinR. (Eds.), Critical disability theory: Essays in philosophy, politics, policy, and law (pp. 1-24). Vancouver, Canada: University of British Columbia Press. Retrieved from http://www.lib.unb.ca/eresources/index.php?sub=ebooks
67.
PriceJ.ShildrickM. (2002). Bodies together: Touch, ethics and disability. In CorkerM.ShakespeareT. (Eds.), Disability/postmodernity. Embodying disability theory (pp. 62-75). London: Continuum.
RacinoJ. A. (1999). Policy, program evaluation, and research in disability. Community support for all. New York: Haworth.
70.
RiouxM. H.CameronC.TicollM.BachM. (1997). Uncovering the shape of violence: A research methodology rooted in the experience of people with disabilities. In BarnesC.MercerG. (Eds.), Doing disability research (pp. 190-206). Leeds, UK: Disability Press.
71.
RyanG. W.BernardH. R. (2003). Techniques to identify themes. Field Methods, 15, 85-109. doi:10.1177/1525822X0223956910.1177/1525822X02239569
72.
SigelmanC.BuddE.SpenhelC.SchoenrockC. (1981). When in doubt, say yes: Acquiescence in interviews with mentally retarded persons. Mental Retardation, 19, 53-58.
73.
SigelmanC.BuddE.WinerG.MartinP. (1982). Evaluating alternative techniques of questioning mentally retarded persons. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 86, 511-518.
74.
SigelmanC.SchoenrockC. J.BuddE. C.WinerJ. L.SpanhelC. L.MartinP. W.. . . BensbergG. J. (1983). Communicating with mentally retarded persons: Asking questions and getting answers. Lubbock: Texas Tech University, Research Training Center in Mental Retardation.
75.
SnyderL. (2002). Confidentiality and anonymity: Promises and practices. In van den HoonaardW. C. (Ed.), Walking the tightrope: Ethical issues for qualitative researchers (pp. 70-78). Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press. Retrieved from http://www.lib.unb.ca/eresources/index.php?sub=ebooks
StrattonM. (2002). Breaking in: Compromises in participatory field research within closed institutions. In van den HoonaardW. C. (Ed.), Walking the tightrope: Ethical issues for qualitative researchers (pp. 124-136). Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press. Retrieved from http://www.lib.unb.ca/eresources/index.php?sub=ebooks
78.
SwainJ.HeymanB.GillmanM. (1998). Public research, private concerns: Ethical issues in the use of open-ended interviews with people who have learning disabilities. Disability & Society, 13(1), 21-36. Retrieved from http://www.lib.unb.ca/eresources/index.php?sub=journals
79.
ThomasC. (2007). Sociologies of disability and illness. Contested ideas in disability studies and medical sociology. Ann Arbor, MI: Palgrave Macmillan.
80.
ThompsonS. A. (2002). My research friend? My friend the researcher? My friend, my researcher? Mis/Informed consent and people with developmental disabilities. In van den HoonaardW. C. (Ed.), Walking the tightrope: Ethical issues for qualitative researchers (pp. 95-106). Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press. Retrieved from http://www.lib.unb.ca/eresources/index.php?sub=ebooks
81.
TremainS. (2002). On the subject of impairment. In CorkerM.ShakespeareT. (Eds.), Disability/postmodernity. Embodying disability theory (pp. 32-47). London: Continuum.
UngarM.NicholG. (2002). The harmony of resistance: Qualitative research and ethical practice in social work. In van den HoonaardW. C. (Ed.), Walking the tightrope: Ethical issues for qualitative researchers (pp. 137-151). Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press. Retrieved from http://www.lib.unb.ca/eresources/index.php?sub=ebooks
85.
UsherK. J.ArthurD. (1998). Process consent: A model for enhancing informed consent in mental health nursing. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 27(4), 692-697. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2648.1998.00589.x10.1046/j.1365-2648.1998.00589.x
86.
van den HoonaardW. C. (2001). Is research-ethics review a moral panic?Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 38(1), 19-36. doi:10.1111/j.1755-618X.2001.tb00601.x10.1111/j.1755-618X.2001.tb00601.x
87.
van den HoonaardW. C. (Ed.). (2002). Some concluding thoughts. In van den HoonaardW. C. (Ed.), Walking the tightrope: Ethical issues for qualitative researchers (pp. 175-188). Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press. Retrieved from http://www.lib.unb.ca/eresources/index.php?sub=ebooks
88.
VassA. A.MinardiH.WardR.AggarwalN.GarfieldC.CybykB. (2003). Research into communication patterns and consequences for affective care of people with Alzheimer’s and their carers. Dementia: The International Journal of Social Research and Practice, 2(1), 21-48. doi:10.1177/147130120300200199310.1177/1471301203002001993
WaldschmidtA. (2005). Who is normal? Who is deviant? “Normality” and “risk” in genetic diagnostics and counseling. In TremainS. (Ed.), Foucault and the government of disability (pp. 191-207). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Retrieved from http://www.lib.unb.ca/eresources/index.php?sub=ebooks
91.
WeinbergM. (2002). Biting the hand that feeds you, and other ethical dilemmas in feminist fieldwork. In van den HoonaardW. C. (Ed.), Walking the tightrope: Ethical issues for qualitative researchers (pp. 79-94). Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press. Retrieved from http://www.lib.unb.ca/eresources/index.php?sub=ebooks
WilsonA.BeresfordP. (2002). Madness, distress and postmodernity: Putting the record straight. In CorkerM.ShakespeareT. (Eds.), Disability/postmodernity. Embodying disability theory (pp. 143-158). London: Continuum.
94.
YanE. G.MunirK. M. (2004). Regulatory and ethical principles in research involving children and individuals with developmental disabilities. Ethics and Behavior, 14(1), 31-49. Retrieved from http://www.lib.unb.ca/eresources/index.php?sub=journals
95.
YatesS. (2005). Truth, power, and ethics in care services for people with learning difficulties. In TremainS. (Ed.), Foucault and the government of disability (pp. 65-77). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Retrieved from http://www.lib.unb.ca/eresources/index.php?sub=ebooks
