Search

What does it mean to intervene in antiracist interviews with public sector workers? What do interventions look like in research seeking to name complicity in settler colonial violence and imagine otherwise relationships between non-Indigenous and Indigenous people? How might we methodologically define interventions and their pedagogical purpose(s)? In this paper, we share our experience of adopting a dual-pedagogical antiracist interventive research methodology in our qualitative research with public sector workers on settler colonial socialization. Building on antiracist interventive interviewing method, we map out our conceptualization of interventions as multidirectional and multiscalar. We narrate how we see interventions as dual pedagogical moments of disruption and possibility occurring at three scales, where we intervene to support our participants’ learning and they intervene to support ours. Our approach is illuminated through illustrations from our transcribed data of virtual interviews with 32 public sector workers in BC ( n = 23) and Alberta ( n = 9), and through our reflections on our research process. Our analysis demonstrates that interventions have three key effects. First, they are generatively disruptive in that they offer better access to understanding processes of settler colonial socialization. Second, interventions create junctures for antiracist and anticolonial learning. Third, interventions with participants open up opportunities to imagine otherwise beyond the strictures of settler colonialism, and orient towards anticolonial praxis rooted in recognition of Indigenous sovereignties. We conclude with a vocabulary of interventions meant to offer other qualitative researchers possibilities for how to intervene to better access and disrupt sites of deep colonizing.

In this piece, we ask, what are the risks of a pedagogy and politics that begins and ends with privilege? What does it mean to declare privilege when embedded in institutions of the settler colonial state? These questions are raised through an ongoing project where we interview provincial public sector workers on Treaty 6, 7 and 8 (Alberta, Canada) and Coast Salish Territories (British Columbia, Canada) about their implications in settler colonialism through public sector work. In the project, we articulate the interdisciplinary framework of settler colonial socialization to consider the space between individuals and structures – the meso-space where settlers are made by learning how to take up the work of settler colonialism. For these reasons, in our research we ask, “what do the pedagogical processes of settler colonial socialization tell us about how systemic colonial violence is sustained, and how it might be disrupted or refused in public sector work?” In this paper, we narrow our focus to the declarations of privilege that many of our interview participants are making. We reflect on these declarations and consider whether focusing on settler complicity and Indigenous refusals can better support a decolonial politics for settlers working in the public sector. We argue that declarations of privilege risk reproducing settler-centric logics that maintain settler colonialism, settler jurisdiction, and settler certainty, and we reflect on how to orient participants (and ourselves) towards the material realization of relational accountability and towards imagining otherwise.

Purpose: People with intellectual disability inequitably access high-quality genetic healthcare. Yet, they are keen to understand more about genetic healthcare and recommend clinicians need education on delivering more inclusive care and that multi-modal genetic health literacy resources should be co-produced., Methods: Our inclusive research team applied best practice co-production principles to deliver a suite of resources, the GeneEQUAL Toolkit. Mixed-methods evaluation including surveys and a focus group/interviews assessed (i) clinicians' perceived capabilities, motivation, and opportunities for providing inclusive healthcare for people with intellectual disability before and after exploring the Toolkit; (ii) the perceptions and opinions of people with intellectual disability about the Toolkit; (iii) the reach of the Toolkit components; and (iv) the reflections of people with intellectual disability and clinicians on the co-production process., Results: The Toolkit met the expectations and preferences of people with intellectual disability and clinicians and had global reach. Co-production was feasible and judged critical for the high value of the Toolkit, in motivating clinicians to change their clinical practice and empowering people with intellectual disability., Conclusion: Co-production can be successfully applied to improve the engagement of people with intellectual disability and potentially reduce health inequity and improve safety and quality of genetic healthcare., (Copyright © 2025. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Self-determination is associated with lifelong positive outcomes. Students with intellectual disabilities typically have lower self-determination than their peers. Universal basic education access offers schools the opportunity to rectify this disparity. This is the first systematic review investigating the school-based practices that target self-determination development for students with intellectual disabilities., Method: The review follows the PRISMA guidelines, spanning five databases (ProQuest databases, EMBASE, Scopus, Sage Journals, Taylor and Francis Online) from 2006 to 2021., Results: Across the 18 studies, the most used practice is the SDLMI. Research focuses on United States-based transition-aged students with mild to moderate intellectual disabilities. Social validity tends to be assessed in summative and informal ways. Students are not generally involved in decision-making about practices and individualisation of support., Conclusions: Self-determination development for this population can begin before puberty. Future research should critically investigate social validity and holistic integration of student self-determination learning opportunities throughout the pedagogical cycle., (© 2024 The Authors. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Competing Interests: EP has received funding from the NHMRC and NSW Health. She is a clinical geneticist at Sydney Children’s Hospitals Network-Randwick and a member of the medical and scientific advisory committee for Rare Voices Australia, the national peak body for Australians living with a rare condition. IS has received funding from the NHMRC and the NSW Department of Health. She is also a Board member of Self Advocacy Sydney, an organisation run by and for people with intellectual disability. JS is Director of the Disability Innovation Institute, which has received funding from the NHMRC and the NSW Department of Health. JL, OAM has received funding from the NHMRC and the NSW Department of Health. She is also a Board member of Self Advocacy Sydney, an organisation run by and for people with intellectual disability. SS has received funding from the NHMRC and the NSW Department of Health. She is also an employee at Self-Advocacy Sydney, an organisation run by and for people with intellectual disability. JB and BT have received funding from the NHMRC. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

There is limited research exploring the knowledge and experiences of genetic healthcare from the perspective of people with intellectual disability. This study, conducted in New South Wales (Australia), addresses this gap. Eighteen adults with intellectual disability and eight support people were interviewed in this inclusive research study. The transcribed interviews were analysed using inductive content analysis. The findings were discussed in a focus group with ten adults with intellectual disability and in three multi-stakeholder advisory workshops, contributing to the validity and trustworthiness of the findings. Five main themes emerged: (i) access to genetic healthcare services is inequitable, with several barriers to the informed consent process; (ii) the experiences and opinions of people with intellectual disability are variable, including frustration, exclusion and fear; (iii) genetic counselling and diagnoses can be profoundly impactful, but translating a genetic diagnosis into tailored healthcare, appropriate support, peer connections and reproductive planning faces barriers; (iv) people with intellectual disability have a high incidence of exposure to trauma and some reported that their genetic healthcare experiences were associated with further trauma; (v) recommendations for a more respectful and inclusive model of genetic healthcare. Co-designed point-of-care educational and consent resources, accompanied by tailored professional education for healthcare providers, are required to improve the equity and appropriateness of genetic healthcare for people with intellectual disability., (© 2023. The Author(s).)