Capturing “Crip Desires” in “Crip Ways”: Developing Inclusive Qualitative Methodologies for Sexualities Research

Abstract

The intersection of disability and sexuality is an exciting area of scholarship that offers fresh perspectives and critical insights into how disabled people navigate desire, intimacy, and pleasure. This emerging field challenges traditional boundaries within the sociology of sexualities, calling into question who is included in this research and how normative assumptions shape discourse and methodology. Yet despite this growing literature, disabled people remain systematically marginalized in gender and sexuality research. Their voices are often excluded due to institutional gatekeeping and ableist stereotypes that infantilize or hypersexualize them. This article argues for inclusive, participatory qualitative methodologies—rooted in “crip” theoretical frameworks—that recognize disabled people as experts in their own lives. By embracing innovative approaches, such as arts-based and diverse communication methods, researchers can create more accessible spaces that allow disabled people to share their experiences on their own terms. Such approaches facilitate knowledge cocreation and foreground the complexity and richness of disabled people’s sexual and relational worlds. Although progress has been made, substantial gaps remain, particularly for those with intersecting marginalized identities. This article highlights the necessity of centering disabled voices in conversations about sexuality, thereby broadening the sociological imagination and fostering a future in which disabled people’s desires, pleasures, and relationships are not only acknowledged but also celebrated.

Keywords

disability sexualities qualitative research inclusive research

Centering Disability in Sexualities Research

The intersection of disability and sexuality represents a vibrant and expanding body of literature that offers fresh perspectives on how disabled individuals¹ experience love, desire, pleasure, and intimacy (Campbell 2017; Loeser, Barbara, and Crowley 2018; Santinele Martino 2024). As this research expands, it prompts the sociology of sexualities to question long-held assumptions about who counts as a sexual subject and how normative frameworks shape scholarly and public understandings of intimacy (Liddiard 2020; Santinele Martino 2024; Tepper 2000). Yet, this emerging field also reveals persistent barriers that demand critical examination and innovative approaches.

Central among these challenges is a cultural and scholarly narrative that both infantilizes and hypersexualizes disabled individuals (Santinele Martino, 2022). On the one hand, disabled people are desexualized and framed as child-like, supposedly unable to comprehend or engage in intimate relationships (Kattari, Hecht, and Isaacs 2021; Verbeek, Koning, and Schippers 2024). On the other hand, particularly in the context of intellectual disability, they are stereotyped as hypersexual and “deviant” (Kattari et al. 2021; Verbeek et al. 2024). This dichotomy reflects deeply ingrained cultural biases that fail to recognize the complexity of disabled individuals’ sexual and gender identities.

The marginalization of disabled individuals extends into the very methodologies and institutions that shape knowledge production. Historically, disabled people have been excluded from participating in or leading research on gender and sexuality, an omission that has perpetuated harmful stereotypes and erased their lived experiences from scholarly conversations (Hughes and Santinele Martino 2023; Santinele Martino and Fudge Schormans 2018; Sellwood, Raghavendra, and Jewell 2017). Moreover, the desexualization or hypersexualization of disabled people parallels the experiences of other marginalized groups—such as trans individuals (see Robinson 2025)—who similarly encounter cultural narratives that deny their sexual agency and erase the full complexity of their identities.

Yet despite systemic obstacles, a growing body of evidence reveals that disabled people are not only sexual beings but actively shape their intimate lives in creative, fulfilling ways (Santinele Martino and Fudge Schormans 2018). Their relationships, desires, and erotic practices are as diverse and meaningful as those of nondisabled people. This reality highlights the urgent need to dismantle ableist frameworks to better understand and support disabled individuals’ sexual expression, agency, and joy.

To advance this goal, the sociology of sexualities and the sociology of disability must engage in deeper and more sustained conversation. Historically, these subfields have operated with limited collaboration, resulting in conceptual silos that fail to capture the complex experiences of disabled sexualities (Campbell 2017). Bridging these areas of inquiry is essential, as doing so will facilitate intersectional analyses that challenge heteronormative and ableist assumptions, enrich the conceptual toolkits of both subfields, and move research toward more inclusive theories and methodologies.

This article builds upon these emerging insights and proposes a different way of conducting sexuality research—one informed by “crip” frameworks and fueled by collaborative, inclusive methods. We begin by examining the ongoing exclusion of disabled people from sexuality research and identifying the stereotypes that distort and limit scholarly understanding. Next, we introduce “crip” methodologies as crucial tools for reshaping research practices—these methodologies value diverse forms of communication, embrace participatory approaches, and compensate disabled people fairly for their expertise. Illustrative examples demonstrate how arts-based, diverse communication, as well as other accessible methods, can foster richer, more ethically sound, and more authentically grounded qualitative data. Throughout, we maintain a forward-looking stance, emphasizing that by centering disabled voices and embracing “crip” frameworks, scholars can chart a more inclusive, socially just, and intellectually innovative future for the sociology of sexualities. In closing, we argue that this shift not only benefits disabled individuals but also enriches the entire field, offering new theoretical horizons and methodological possibilities that promise a more expansive understanding of human intimacy in all its diversity.

Institutional Gatekeeping and Ethically Complex Moments

Scholarship at the intersections of disability and sexuality continues to grapple with persistent institutional gatekeeping. Historically, disabled individuals—particularly those labeled or living with intellectual disabilities—have been systematically silenced in knowledge production, especially in research about sexuality. Institutional oversight bodies, such as ethics review boards, have often unwittingly reinforced ableist and paternalistic practices by imposing restrictive conditions on research participation (Santinele Martino and Fudge Schormans 2018). As previous studies have shown, these boards may default to over-protectionism, assuming disabled people must be “shielded” from research that could otherwise validate their voices (McDonald et al. 2016; Santinele Martino and Fudge Schormans 2018). Such paternalistic gatekeeping recasts disabled and mad² individuals as inherently “too vulnerable” or “too unreliable” to contribute meaningfully to scholarly inquiry, perpetuating stereotypes and foreclosing opportunities for engagement (Santinele Martino and Fudge Schormans 2018).

Conducting research on disabled people’s intimate lives requires navigating ethically complex moments that demand a balance between procedural protocols and relational ethics (Santinele Martino 2023; Marshall et al. 2012). Participants may, for example, share misinformation about their sexual rights or disclose painful experiences of social isolation and rejection. In these instances, researchers have ethical obligations to offer accurate information and direct participants to supportive resources, while maintaining respect for each person’s autonomy and dignity.

Language also plays a pivotal role in these endeavors. Disabled participants may communicate their gender and sexuality in nonstandard ways, reflecting the evolving lexicon around identity terms like “queer” and “crip” (Barry and Nesbitt 2023). Rather than imposing academic or clinical definitions, researchers must embrace participants’ chosen terminologies (Hughes and Santinele Martino 2023). While these challenges highlight the complexities of inclusive research, recent scholarship increasingly recognizes the richness and diversity of disabled people’s sexualities.

The Case for “Cripping” Sexualities Research

The reclamation of the term “crip” by some disabled people is a powerful act of resistance and empowerment. Once wielded as a derogatory label to diminish disabled individuals and define them solely by perceived limitations (Bone 2017; Hutcheon and Wolbring 2013), “crip” has been reclaimed—much like “queer”—to celebrate pride in embodied difference (McRuer 2018). To “crip” a concept or practice is to actively challenge normative assumptions about bodies, minds, and social interactions (Santinele Martino and Fudge Schormans 2021). “Cripping,” invites researchers to question the societal structures that enforce standards of normalcy, opening up possibilities for nonnormative ways of being (Bierdz 2023; Sheppard 2020). In the context of sexuality, “cripping” reshapes how scholars imagine intimacy, desire, and relationships beyond the constraints of ableist and heteronormative frameworks (Santinele Martino and Moumos 2024). This re-imagining highlights disabled people’s agency, adaptability, and resilience as they craft intimate lives that defy conventional expectations.

Disabled people often create adaptive and inventive approaches to intimacy, challenging ableist and heteronormative notions of what constitutes a “proper” sexual relationship. For example, Sellwood et al. (2022) found that people with complex communication needs who rely on augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) devices formed intimate connections by circumventing gatekeepers—for example, by meeting partners online—and by developing innovative methods to express sexual desires when AAC technology was not readily accessible. Such findings underscore the agency and creativity at the heart of disabled people’s relational strategies.

Rethinking Methods: Researching Disabled Sexualities in “Crip” Ways

In disability and sexuality research, the methods we choose are as important as the knowledge they produce. Historically, research involving disabled people has been conducted in ways that marginalize their voices, treating them as objects of study rather than active collaborators (Danieli and Woodhams 2005; Johnson and Walmsley 2003). Such practices perpetuate ableism, restrict the depth and quality of the data collected, and risk misrepresenting the very people whose lives the research seeks to understand. In contrast, inclusive and participatory approaches offer a transformative model—one that centers disabled people as cocreators of knowledge, respects their autonomy, and recognizes the full complexity of their experiences (Bigby and Frawley 2015; Wickenden and Franco 2021)

Adopting “crip” approaches to qualitative sexuality research entails fundamentally reimagining our methods to prioritize accessibility, inclusion, and empowerment (Hickman and Serlin 2018; Verbeek, Koning, and Schippers 2024). Such an approach challenges the ableist assumptions embedded in conventional academic practices, including rigid data collection techniques, inaccessible research environments, and deficit-oriented narratives. Instead, “crip” methodologies favor flexible, participant-driven methods that honor the diverse ways disabled individuals experience and articulate their sexualities (Hill 2023; Hole and Schnellert 2024). This commitment to accessibility extends to all aspects of the research setting, from providing materials in multiple formats to allowing flexible scheduling and ensuring participants feel safe, respected, and valued at every stage (Schwartz et al. 2020).

A critical aspect of this paradigm shift involves addressing long-standing issues that have excluded disabled people from research. Ensuring that disabled participants, coresearchers, and advisory group members are “fairly compensated for their expertise” goes beyond the nominal incentives or small payments typically offered to research participants. It involves recognizing the unique, specialized knowledge that people with disabilities bring to the research process and compensating them commensurate with the time, effort, and expertise they contribute. In other words, these individuals often act in capacities that resemble consultation or advisory roles; therefore, they should receive compensation reflecting this added value rather than merely a token stipend. This approach also encompasses additional considerations such as paying for accessibility-related costs (e.g., assistive technology or personal assistance) to facilitate full engagement in research activities. Disabled individuals have frequently been asked to contribute knowledge and insights without adequate remuneration, reinforcing structures that devalue their contributions. Fair compensation not only respects their time and expertise but also challenges ableist structures that exploit marginalized groups under the guise of “volunteerism” or “community engagement” (McDonald and Raymaker 2013; Papoulias and Callard 2022).

Another key principle of “cripping” methodologies is rejecting consent and participation criteria premised on problematic, medicalized measures like IQ scores or presumed cognitive capacity (Santinele Martino and Fudge Schormans 2018). Such standards routinely exclude people with intellectual or developmental disabilities, based on paternalistic assumptions that they cannot make informed decisions or provide valuable insights. Instead, researchers should develop accessible consent processes—offering visual aids, easy-read materials, or ongoing opportunities for reaffirming consent throughout the study—to foster autonomy and agency among all participants.

Similarly, “crip” approaches discourage the overreliance on proxies, such as family members or support workers, to “speak” in place of disabled people. While proxies can offer useful context, their voices must not overshadow those of disabled individuals themselves (Dai and Moffatt 2021). Overreliance on proxies risks reinforcing narratives that frame disabled people as incapable of self-representation rather than honoring their unique perspectives and expertise (Nicolaidis et al. 2019).

Central to this methodological reorientation is challenging narrow conceptions of “voice” itself. Traditional qualitative research often assumes verbal speech as the standard mode of communication, inadvertently excluding participants who use nonverbal or alternative forms of expression. A “crip” approach embraces diverse communication methods, such as sign languages, AAC (augmentative and alternative communication) devices, written responses, artistic expressions, and gestures. By valuing multiple forms of expression, researchers capture a fuller, more nuanced range of disabled people’s lived realities.

Arts-based methodologies—such as participatory photography, theater, or storytelling workshops—exemplify this spirit of inclusion. They enable participants to communicate their experiences in ways that resonate deeply with their sensory, cognitive, and communicative styles. In turn, these methods empower participants to shape how their narratives are produced and shared, and thus they align closely with the principles of participatory research that prioritize collaboration, cocreation, and ethical engagement. One example is the first author’s ongoing research project, Autistic Voices, Inclusive Choices: Shaping the Future of Sexual Health Education. Rather than using traditional methods to study the sexualities of autistic adults, this project invites them to actively shape both the research process and its outcomes. Through arts-based workshops and semistructured interviews, participants codesign activities with a neurodivergent artist, contributing their insights to create accessible and meaningful materials. Inclusive strategies like these validate the diversity of autistic experiences and dismantle the hierarchies that have traditionally defined academic inquiry.

By centering disabled people’s voices through “crip” methodologies, researchers not only produce richer, more authentic data but also actively resist ableist hierarchies of knowledge. This reimagining of research practices invites us to envision a future sociology that is collaborative, ethical, and responsive to the complexities of all participants’ lives.

“Cripping” Desire: Stories of Joy, Pleasure, and Fucking

All too often, disabled people’s expressions of desire and sexuality are met with disbelief, surprise, or judgment (Shildrick 2007). These reactions reflect deeply ingrained societal stereotypes that either desexualize disabled people or pathologize their sexualities (Santos and Santos 2018). The result is not only the invalidation of disabled people’s agency and desires but also a pervasive silence that obscures the complexity and richness of their sexual lives. To counter such marginalization, there is an urgent need to create research spaces in which disabled people can feel safe, supported, and respected as they share their stories. Qualitative researchers—and the students we train—must approach this work with reflexivity, sensitivity, and a steadfast commitment to challenging ableist assumptions.

At times in the existing literature, disability and sexuality have been framed through a deficit lens, focusing on what disabled people supposedly “lack” or endure rather than what they cherish or how they thrive (Liddiard 2020; Loeser et al. 2018). Drawing on Eve Tuck’s (2009) concept of desire-based research, we can reframe these narratives to center disabled people’s desires, pleasures, and aspirations. A desire-based approach shifts the focus from damage and victimhood toward resilience, creativity, and agency. In this vein, Jones’s (2025) discussion of the Black Feminist Erotic Imagination (in this issue) further illustrates how centering desire can disrupt oppressive narratives and open possibilities for reimagining marginalized identities. In the context of sexuality, this perspective means moving beyond discussions of barriers and constraints to explore the richness of disabled people’s intimate lives, the inventive ways they navigate relationships, and the communities they forge around shared identities and experiences (Holloway 2023; Shuster and Westbrook 2024).

A “crip sociology of fucking,” as Santinele Martino (2024) terms it, exemplifies this transformative shift. Realizing such a vision demands that qualitative researchers deliberately create spaces where participants can discuss these topics openly, candidly, and without fear of judgment. Traditional research settings often overlook the humor, vulnerability, and innovative forms of self-expression that shape conversations about sex and desire. Methodologies like arts-based and diverse communication methods help researchers capture more authentic and dynamic accounts. These approaches not only produce richer and more nuanced data but also cultivate a sense of empowerment, community, and mutual respect among participants.

Adopting “crip” approaches to understanding sexuality and conducting research in this area brings benefits that extend well beyond disabled communities. By challenging normative assumptions about bodies, relationships, and desires, “crip” perspectives invite all scholars and practitioners to think more expansively about what sexuality means and how it can be studied. Qualitative research methods informed by “crip” epistemologies—foregrounding accessibility, participant leadership, and ethical reflexivity—establish a higher standard for research practices that value respect, inclusivity, and meaningful engagement with all participants. In so doing, these methods not only advance knowledge of disabled sexualities but also illuminate possibilities for more just, creative, and truly human-centered inquiry across the broader field of sexualities research.

Toward a Bright Future in “Crip” Sexualities Research

Sociology holds the potential to lead this transformative shift. “Cripping” sociological theories—adapting both classical and contemporary concepts through a critical disability lens—allows us to reframe fundamental notions of agency, power, and identity. Such transformation demands adapting our methodologies to be fully inclusive and participatory. In practical terms, this means engaging disabled individuals as coresearchers and collaborators—not merely as research subjects. By codeveloping research tools, utilizing accessible technologies, and valuing a diverse range of communication forms, we can create a richer, more nuanced understanding of disabled people’s intimate lives.

Centering disabled voices in research also helps us confront stereotypes, reject deficit-based perspectives, and embrace a more holistic view of disabled people’s sexualities. Rather than defining disabled people by what is presumed “absent” or “impaired,” we can focus on joy, creativity, and the empowering aspects of their intimate lives. Embracing the concept of “crip joy” (Ingram & Jacobsen 2024) further expands this focus, celebrating disabled bodies and minds as sites of radical pleasure, self-affirmation, and communal connection. By recognizing these diverse expressions of pleasure and intimacy, we validate the resilience and ingenuity of disabled people, challenging norms that have historically marginalized their sexual agency. Such a shift humanizes research, fostering an environment where disabled participants are seen as equal partners in knowledge creation and narrative shaping.

As sociologists of sexualities, it is our responsibility to extend a genuine invitation to disabled community members and critical disability theorists alike, forging research partnerships that challenge traditional academic gatekeeping. Such reciprocal collaboration exposes new perspectives, deconstructs long-standing notions of normalcy, and encourages us to reexamine enduring assumptions that have shaped the discipline for centuries. By working hand-in-hand with disabled communities, we can dismantle the once-restrictive boundaries of research and pave the way for a sociology that is both intellectually dynamic and socially just.

Ultimately, the future of sociology rests in its ability to embrace disability and sexuality not as peripheral concerns but as central to understanding human experience. Applying sociological theories, “cripping” existing frameworks, and adopting transformative, community-driven methodologies will create a discipline that is inclusive, insightful, and impactful. The study of disability and sexuality is not merely a specialized topic—it is an opportunity to reimagine what sociology can be, whose voices it centers, and how it can serve communities in meaningful, liberatory ways.

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Alan Santinele Martino

Oscar E. Hughes

Statements and Declarations

Notes

References

Barry

Ben

Nesbitt

Philippa

. 2023. “Self-Fashioning Queer/Crip: Stretching and Grappling with Disability, Gender and Dress.” Fashion, Style & Popular Culture 10(1–2):45–62.

Bierdz

Brad

. 2023. “Crip Time as Time Shit: A Dislocation of Time as an Organizing Apparatus of Sensicality and Normativity.” Disability & Society 40:1–16.

Bigby

Christine

Frawley

Patsie

. 2015. “Conceptualizing Inclusive Research: A Participatory Research Approach with People with Intellectual Disability—Paradigm or Method.” Pp. 136–60 in Participatory Qualitative Research Methodologies in Health, edited by Higginbottom

Liamputtong

Bone

Kristin M.

2017. “Trapped Behind the Glass: Crip Theory and Disability Identity.” Disability & Society 32(9):1297–314.

Campbell

Marrgaret

. 2017. “Disabilities and Sexual Expression: A Review of the Literature.” Sociology Compass 11(9):e12508.

Dai

Jiamin

Moffatt

Karyn

. 2021. “Surfacing the Voices of People with Dementia: Strategies for Effective Inclusion of Proxy Stakeholders in Qualitative Research.” Pp. 1–13 in Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.

Danieli

Ardha

Woodhams

Carol

. 2005. “Emancipatory Research Methodology and Disability: A Critique.” International Journal of Social Research Methodology 8(4):281–96.

Hickman

Louise

Serlin

David

. 2018. “Towards a Crip Methodology for Critical Disability Studies.” Pp. 131–41 in Interdisciplinary Approaches to Disability, edited by Hickman

Serlin

Routledge.

Hill

Megan

. 2023. “Ethical and Methodological Considerations for Facilitating Community-Based Participatory Visual Research with Queer and Disabled Elders.” Pp. 291–306 in Facilitating Visual Socialities: Processes, Complications and Ethical Practices, edited by Burkholder

Schwab-Cartas

Aladejebi

Palgrave Macmillian.

10.

Hole

Rachelle D.

Schnellert

Leyton

. 2024. “Disability Theatre as Critical Participatory Action Research: Lessons for Inclusive Research.” Social Sciences 13(2):116.

11.

Holloway

Brendon T.

2023. “Highlighting Trans Joy: A Call to Practitioners, Researchers, and Educators.” Health Promotion Practice 24(4):612–4.

12.

Hughes

Oscar E.

Santinele Martino

Alan

. 2023. “Community-Based Participatory Gender and Sexualities Research with LGBTQ+ People with Intellectual and/or Developmental Disabilities.” International Journal of Qualitative Methods 22:16094069231173779.

13.

Hutcheon

Emily

Wolbring

Gregor

. 2013. “‘Cripping’ Resilience: Contributions from Disability Studies to Resilience Theory.” M/C Journal. Advance online publication. doi: 10.5204/mcj.697.

14.

Ingram

Megan

Jacobsen

Kai

. 2024. “Both Because of and in Spite of: Towards the Reclamation of Queercrip Joy.” Sexualities. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1177/13634607241264319.

15.

Johnson

Kelley

Walmsley

Jan

. 2003. Inclusive Research with People with Learning Disabilities: Past, Present and Futures. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

16.

Jones

Angela

. 2025. “The Black Feminist Erotic Imagination.” Sex and Sexualities 1(1):11–17.

17.

Kattari

Shanna K.

K. Hecht

Heather

Isaacs

Yona E.

2021. “Sexy Spoonies and Crip Sex: Sexuality and Disability in a Social Work Context.” Pp. 269–84 in The Routledge International Handbook of Social Work and Sexualities, edited by Kattari

S. K.

Redway

N. K.

Meekosha

M. P.

Routledge.

18.

Liddiard

Kirsty

. 2020. “Theorizing Disabled People’s Sexual, Intimate, and Erotic Lives: Current Theories for Disability and Sexuality.” Pp. 39–52 in The Routledge Handbook of Disability and Sexuality, edited by McRuer

Mollow

Routledge.

19.

Loeser

Cassandra

Pini

Barbara

Crowley

Vicki

. 2018. “Disability and Sexuality: Desires and Pleasures.” Sexualities 21(3):255–70.

20.

Marshall

Zack

Nixon

Stephanie

Nepveux

Denise

Tess

Wilson

Ciann

Flicker

Sarah

Wilson

Ciann

Proudfoot

Devon

. 2012. “Navigating Risks and Professional Roles: Research with Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans, and Queer Young People with Intellectual Disabilities.” Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 7(4):20–33.

21.

McDonald

Katherine E.

Conroy

Nicole E.

Kim

Carolyn I.

LoBraico

Emilt J.

Prather

Ellis M.

Olick

Robert S.

2016. “Is Safety in the Eye of the Beholder? Safeguards in Research with Adults with Intellectual Disability.” Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 11(5):424–38.

22.

McDonald

Katherine E.

Raymaker

Dora M.

2013. “Paradigm Shifts in Disability and Health: Toward More Ethical Public Health Research.” American Journal of Public Health 103(12):2165–73.

23.

McRuer

Robert

. 2018. Crip Times: Disability, Globalization, and Resistance. New York: NYU Press.

24.

Menzies

Robert

LeFrançois

Brenda A.

Reaume

Geoffrey

. 2013. “Introducing Mad Studies.” Pp. 1–22 in Mad Matters: A Critical Reader in Canadian Mad Studies, 1st ed., edited by LeFrançois

B. A.

Menzies

Reaume

Canadian Scholars’ Press.

25.

Nicolaidis

Christina

Raymaker

Dora

Kapp

Steven K.

Baggs

Amelia

Ashkenazy

Elesia

McDonald

Katherine

Weiner

Michael

Maslak

Joelle

Hunter

Morrigan

Joyce

Andrea

. 2019. “The AASPIRE Practice-Based Guidelines for the Inclusion of Autistic Adults in Research as Co-Researchers and Study Participants.” Autism 23(8):2007–19.

26.

Papoulias

Constantina S.

Callard

Felicity

. 2022. “Material and Epistemic Precarity: It’s Time to Talk About Labour Exploitation in Mental Health Research.” Social Science & Medicine 306:115102.

27.

Robinson

Brandon Andrew

. 2025. “‘I Feel the Most Pleasure When I Don’t Have to Worry’: On Sexual Comfort, t4t, and Trans Pleasure.” Sex and Sexualities 1(1):18–24.

28.

Santinele Martino

Alan

Moumos

Eleni

. 2024. “‘Cripping’ Intimate Relationships: The Experiences of 2SLGBTQ+ Adults with Developmental and/or Intellectual Disability.” Sexuality & Culture 28(4):1446–66.

29.

Santinele Martino

Alan

Fudge Schormans

Ann

. 2018. “When Good Intentions Backfire: University Research Ethics Review and the Intimate Lives of People Labeled with Intellectual Disabilities.” Forum: Qualitative Social Research 19(3). doi:10.17169/fqs-19.3.3090.

30.

Santinele Martino

Alan

Schormans

Ann Fudge

. 2021. “Theoretical Developments: Queer Theory Meets Crip Theory”. Pp. 53–67 in Routledge Handbook of Disability and Sexuality, edited by Shuttleworth

Mona

Routledge.

31.

Santinele Martino

Alan

. 2024. “Sense and Sensuality: A Call for a Crip Dialogue Moving Beyond the Language of ‘Sexual Health’ and ‘Healthy Sexualities.’” Pp. 203–16 in Disability and the Changing Contexts of Family and Personal Relationships, edited by McDonald

Cluley

Emerald Publishing Limited.

32.

Santinele Martino

Alan

. 2023. “Ethically Important Moments: Researching the Intimate Lives of Adults Labeled/with Intellectual Disabilities.” Qualitative Research 23(6):1800–9.

33.

Santinele Martino

Alan

. 2022. The Intersection of Sexuality and Intellectual Disability: Shattering the Taboo. Pp. 460–69 in Introducing the New Sexuality Studies, edited by Fischer

Westbrook

Seidman

Routledge.

34.

Santos

Ana C.

Santos

Ana L.

2018. “Yes, We Fuck! Challenging the Misfit Sexual Body through Disabled Women’s Narratives.” Sexualities 21(3):303–18.

35.

Schwartz

Ariel E.

Kramer

Jessica M.

Cohn

Ellen S.

McDonald

Katherine E.

2020. “‘That Felt Like Real Engagement’: Fostering and Maintaining Inclusive Research Collaborations with Individuals with Intellectual Disability.” Qualitative Health Research 30(2):236–49.

36.

Sellwood

David

Raghavendra

Pammi

Jewell

Paul

. 2017. “Sexuality and Intimacy for People with Congenital Physical and Communication Disabilities: Barriers and Facilitators—A Systematic Review.” Sexuality and Disability 35:227–44.

37.

Sellwood

Darryl

Raghavendra

Parimala

Walker

Ruth

. 2022. “Facilitators and barriers to developing romantic and sexual relationships: Lived experiences of people with complex communication needs”. Augmentative and Alternative Communication 38(1):1–14.

38.

Sheppard

Emma

. 2020. “Performing Normal but Becoming Crip: Living with Chronic Pain.” Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research 22(1):39–47.

39.

Shildrick

Margrit

. 2007. “Contested Pleasures: The Sociopolitical Economy of Disability and Sexuality.” Sexuality Research & Social Policy 4:53–66.

40.

Shuster

Stef M.

Westbrook

Laurel

. 2024. “Reducing the Joy Deficit in Sociology: A Study of Transgender Joy.” Social Problems 71(3):791–809.

41.

Tuck

Eve

. 2009. “Suspending damage: A letter to communities”. Harvard Educational Review 79(3):409–428.

42.

Tepper

Mitchell S.

2000. “Sexuality and Disability: The Missing Discourse of Pleasure.” Sexuality and Disability 18(4):283–90.

43.

Verbeek

Lesley

Koning

Mark

Schippers

Alice

. 2024. “Understanding Epistemic Justice through Inclusive Research about Intellectual Disability and Sexuality.” Social Sciences 13(8):408. doi:10.3390/socsci13080408.

44.

Wickenden

Mary

Franco

Erika L.

2021. “Don’t Leave Us Out: Disability Inclusive Participatory Research—Why and How.” Pp. 321–38 in The SAGE Handbook of Participatory Research and Inquiry, edited by Burns

Howard

Ospina

SAGE Publications.