Search

The relationship between mental health and special educational needs is both complex and misunderstood. In this article, Richard Rose, Professor of Special and Inclusive Education, Marie Howley, Senior Lecturer, Ann Fergusson, Senior Lecturer, and Johnson Jament, a PhD student, all from the Centre for Special Needs Education and Research directed by Richard Rose at the University of Northampton, discuss findings from a national research project which explored the perceptions of pupil mental health needs by staff working in residential special schools. Teachers and other professional colleagues often feel ill-prepared to address mental health difficulties experienced by their pupils. This is, at times, exacerbated by a wider confusion when atypical behaviours are attributed to a diagnosed learning difficulty rather than being recognised as symptomatic of a mental health problem. The article suggests a need for clarification of the relationship between complex special educational needs and mental health and for increases in training opportunities and the development of resources for teaching about and supporting mental health and emotional well-being.

Increasingly in recent years, the involvement of disabled people as co-researchers has been regarded as "good practice." This has been informed by growing participatory and emancipatory research paradigms as well as user-focused policy imperatives. The benefits of these shifts apply to the research itself (improved definition, direction, applicability and impact), to non-disabled researchers (personal growth and enhanced understanding of the reflexive research process), to people with disabilities involved as researchers or collaborators (personal growth and enhanced opportunities), and (if externally funded) to the funder whose ways of operating are likely to be challenged profoundly. In this paper, Ann Lewis, Sarah Parsons and Christopher Robertson (based at the University of Birmingham), Anthony Feiler, Beth Tarleton and Debby Watson (based at the University of Bristol) and Richard Byers, Jill Davies, Ann Fergusson and Claire Marvin (based at the University of Cambridge) discuss the work of three independent research teams carrying out concurrent projects. The authors share their experiences of trying to take seriously the participation of disabled people in research. All three projects were informed, to a significant degree, by their respective reference groups of disabled people. The work of these groups in each of the three projects is outlined and then discussed in relation to five common themes: formal contracts with members of reference groups; considerations concerning drawing on an established reference group; planning for reference group involvement; style of reference group involvement; and building on good practice.

Increasingly in recent years, the involvement of disabled people as co-researchers has been regarded as ‘good practice’. This has been informed by growing participatory and emancipatory research paradigms as well as user-focused policy imperatives. The benefits of these shifts apply to the research itself (improved definition, direction, applicability and impact), to non-disabled researchers (personal growth and enhanced understanding of the reflexive research process), to people with disabilities involved as researchers or collaborators (personal growth and enhanced opportunities), and (if externally funded) to the funder whose ways of operating are likely to be challenged profoundly. In this paper, Ann Lewis, Sarah Parsons and Christopher Robertson (based at the University of Birmingham), Anthony Feiler, Beth Tarleton and Debby Watson (based at the University of Bristol) and Richard Byers, Jill Davies, Ann Fergusson and Claire Marvin (based at the University of Cambridge) discuss the work of three independent research teams carrying out concurrent projects. The authors share their experiences of trying to take seriously the participation of disabled people in research. All three projects were informed, to a significant degree, by their respective reference groups of disabled people. The work of these groups in each of the three projects is outlined and then discussed in relation to five common themes: formal contracts with members of reference groups; considerations concerning drawing on an established reference group; planning for reference group involvement; style of reference group involvement; and building on good practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]