Search

Background: We are a research team of clinical, academic and advocacy-based researchers with and without learning disabilities, working on the "Humanising Healthcare" (for people with learning disabilities) project. The project is dedicated to finding and sharing healthcare practices that enhance the lives of people with learning disabilities. As part of our ethics applications to access National Health Service study sites for fieldwork, we worked together to write guiding principles for co-producing research ethics with researchers with learning disabilities. In this paper, we introduce these Participatory Ethics Good Practice Guidelines and reflect on our collaboration. Methods: We reflect on developing the Participatory Ethics Good Practice Guidelines. These guidelines were developed during online co-production meetings with our full research team, including advocacy-based organisation researchers, clinical researchers and university researchers. We considered consent, understanding research, and understanding research methods during the development of these Guidelines. Findings: We present ten guidelines for co-producing research with people with learning disabilities. Conclusions: Our findings may be helpful to researchers with learning disabilities, university and clinical researchers, funders, and those who work in research governance (e.g., ethics committees and university research departments).

Background: Inclusive research has sidelined discussion of theoretical issues with researchers with intellectual/learning disabilities. This is a situation which the Big Ideas initiative sought to change. Between 2021 and 2023, the Open University, Leipzig University and the University of Koblenz organised nine workshops to explore influential theories in disability research. The objective was to share a theory (Big Idea) that sheds light on disability with self-advocates and discuss how it relates to their experience. By making theories accessible and discussing how they relate to lived experience, we aimed to inform self-advocates and activist researchers about key concepts in disability, deepen their capacity for research and campaigning, and better equip them to activate for change. Methods: The online workshops were evaluated by observers. These observations were used by an inclusive group of activist researchers as the basis for an overall evaluation of the project. Findings: People with learning disabilities can engage with complex theories if these are presented accessibly alongside opportunities for reflective discussion. Input from self-advocates helps to broaden and deepen theoretical understanding. An unanticipated but important finding was that the Big Ideas workshops created a new space in which academics and self-advocates could learn together as equals. Conclusions: Making theory accessible and easier to understand is both possible and valuable.