Co-authorship is welcome in the field of disability studies where the argument for involving former ‘subjects’ in research is well rehearsed. This involvement brings concomitant problems to the process and these can be summarized around audience, ownership and authority. People with learning difficulties need to be involved in the research process. This involvement, however, is not straightforward. Poststructuralist critiques have rendered knowledge claims suspect when they are aligned with the ‘author-as-expert’. Similarly, presumed authenticity derived from ontological privilege invites criticism on the grounds that such a stance compromises knowledge claims by restricting them to specific identity positions. The article argues for a re-evaluation of the language used within the disability press that promotes variety over dogma and places more emphasis on what is said rather than who is speaking. Finally, a plea is made for accessible versions of the contents of academic publications to be readily available to a wider audience.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BARTHES, R. (1977) ‘The Death of the Author’, in Image, Music, Text. Glasgow: Fontana/Collins .
2.
BERNARD, W. T. (2000) ‘Participatory Research as Emancipatory Method: Challenges and Opportunities’, in D. BURTON (ed.) Research Training for Social Scientists. London: Sage .
3.
BOOTH, T. (1996) ‘Sounds of Still Voices: Issues in the Use of Narrative Methods with People Who Have Learning Difficulties’, in L. BARTON (ed.) Disability and Society: Emerging Issues and Insights. London: Longman .
4.
BRAYE, S. & PRESTON-SHOOT, M. (1995) Empowering Practice in Social Care. Buckingham: Open University Press .
5.
CHAMBERLAYNE, P., BORNAT, J. & WENGRAF, T. (eds) (2000) The Turn to Biographical Methods in Social Science. London: Routledge .
6.
CHAPPELL, A. L. (1997) ‘From Normalisation to Where?’, in L. BARTON & M. OLIVER (eds) Disability Studies: Past, Present and Future. Leeds: Disability Press .
7.
CHAPPELL, A. L. (2000) ‘ Emergence of Participatory Methodology in Learning Difficulty Research: Understanding the Context ’, British Journal of Learning Disabilities28: 38–43 .
8.
CHEEK, J. (2000) Postmodern and Poststructural Approaches to Nursing Research. London: Sage .
9.
COFFEY, A. & ATKINSON, P. (1996) Making Sense of Qualitative Data. London: Sage .
10.
CORKER, M. (1999) ‘ Discriminatory Language, Talking Disability, and the Quiet Revolution in Language Change ’, in Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the British Association for Applied Linguistics, University of Edinburgh, 17 September 1999.
11.
DAVIS, J. M. (2000) ‘ Disability Studies as Ethnographic Research and Text: Research Strategies and Roles for Promoting Social Change? ’, Disability & Society15 (2): 191–206 .
12.
D’CRUZ, C. (2001) ‘ “ What Matter Who’s Speaking?”: Authenticity and Identity in Discourses of Aboriginality in Australia ’, Jouvert: A Journal of Postcolonial Studies5 (3). At: http://social.chass.ncsu.edu/jouvert/v5i3/cdcr.htm, accessed November 2002.
13.
DEACON, J. J. (1982) Tongue Tied: Fifty Years of Friendship in a Subnormality Hospital. London: Royal Society for Mentally Handicapped Children and Adults .
14.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (2001) Valuing People: A New Strategy for the 21st Century. Cm 5086. London: Stationery Office .
15.
DUCKETT, P. S. & FRYER, D. (1998) ‘ Developing Empowering Research Practices with People Who Have Learning Disabilities ’, Journal of Community & Applied Psychology8: 57–65 .
16.
FAIRCLOUGH, N. (1992) Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity .
17.
FAY, B. (1996) Contemporary Philosophy of Social Science. London: Blackwell .
18.
FEATHER, J. (1994) Publishing, Piracy and Politics: An Historical Study of Copyright in Britain. London: Mansell .
19.
FOUCAULT, M. (1977) ‘What Is an Author?’, in D. F. BOUCHARD (ed.) Language, Counter-Memory and Practice. New York: Cornell University Press .
20.
GERGEN, K. J. (1999) An Invitation to Social Construction. London: Sage .
21.
GOODLEY, D. (2001) ‘ “Learning Difficulties”, the Social Model of Disability and Impairment: Challenging Epistemologies ’, Disability & Society16 (2): 207–231 .
22.
GOODLEY, D. & MOORE, M. (2000) ‘ Doing Disability Research: Activist Lives and the Academy ’, Disability & Society, 15 (6): 861–882 .
23.
HARVEY, E. D. (1992) Ventriloquized Voices: Feminist Theory and English Renaissance Texts. London: Routledge .
24.
HUMPHRIES, B. (1998) ‘ The Baby and the Bath Water: Hammersley, Cealey Harrison and Hood-Williams and the Emancipatory Research Debate ’, Sociological Research Online3 (1). At: http://www.socresonline.org.uk/socresonline/3/1/9.html, accessed January 2003.
25.
HUNT, P. (ed.) (1966) Stigma: The Experience of Disability. London: Geoffrey Chapman .
26.
KITCHIN, R. (2000) ‘ The Researched Opinions on Research: Disabled People and Disability Research ’, Disability & Society15 (1): 25–57 .
MAINES, D. R. (1993) ‘ Narrative’s Moment and Sociology’s Phenomena: Toward a Narrative Sociology ’, The Sociological Quarterly34 (1): 17–38 .
29.
MARCH, J., STEINGOLD, B. & JUSTICE, S. (1997) ‘ Follow the Yellow Brick Road! People with Learning Difficulties as Co-Researchers ’, British Journal of Learning Disabilities25: 77–80 .
30.
MCCARTHY, M. (1999) Sexuality and Women with Learning Disabilities. London: Jessica Kingsley .
31.
MCCLIMENS, A. (2002) ‘ All I Can Remember Were Tablets: Pat’s Story ’, Journal of Learning Disabilities6 (1): 73–88 .
32.
MITCHELL, P. (1997) ‘ The Impact of Self-Advocacy on Families ’, Disability & Society12 (1): 43–56 .
33.
NESPOR, J. & BARBER, L. (1995) ‘Audience and the Politics of Narrative’, in J. A. HATCH & R. WISNIEWSKI (eds) Life History and Narrative. London: Falmer .
34.
NEUMANN, W. L. (2000) Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Needle Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon .
35.
OLIVER, M. (1992) ‘ Changing the Social Relations of Research Production? ’, Disability, Handicap & Society7 (2): 101–114 .
36.
OLNEY, M. F. & KIM, A. (2001) ‘ Beyond Adjustment: Integration of Cognitive Disability into Identity ’, Disability & Society16 (4): 563–583 .
37.
POLKINGHORNE, D. E. (1995) ‘ Narrative Configuration in Qualitative Analysis ’, Qualitative Studies in Education8 (1): 5–23 .
38.
PRIESTLEY, M. & STONE, E. (1996) ‘ Parasites, Pawns and Partners: Disability Research and the Role of Non-Disabled Researchers ’, British Journal of Sociology47 (4): 669–716 .
39.
RABINOW, P. (ed.) (1984) The Foucault Reader: An Introduction to Foucault’s Thought. London: Penguin .
40.
RICHARDSON, L. (1995) ‘Narrative and Sociology’, in J. VAN MAANEN (ed.) Representation in Ethnography. London: Sage .
41.
ROSSMAN, G. B. & RALLIS, S. F. (1998) Learning in the Field: An Introduction to Qualitative Research. London: Sage .
42.
STALKER, K. (1998) ‘ Some Ethical and Methodological Issues in Research with People with Learning Difficulties ’, Disability & Society13: 5–19 .
43.
STOECKER, R. (1999) ‘ Are Academics Irrelevant? Roles for Scholars in Participatory Research ’, American Behavioural Scientist42 (5): 840–854 .
44.
WALMSLEY, J. (2001) ‘ Normalisation, Emancipatory Research and Inclusive Research in Learning Disability ’, Disability & Society16 (2): 187–205 .
45.
WARD, L. & SIMONS, K. (1998) ‘ Practising Partnership: Involving People with Learning Difficulties in Research ’, British Journal of Learning Disabilities26: 128–131 .
