Startseite Chapter 2. “Like us you mean?”
Kapitel
Lizenziert
Nicht lizenziert Erfordert eine Authentifizierung

Chapter 2. “Like us you mean?”

Sensitive disability questions and peer research encounters
  • Valerie Williams
Weitere Titel anzeigen von John Benjamins Publishing Company

Abstract

This chapter is about research in Disability Studies, where co-production, inclusivity and peer research are central ( Barton 2005; Walmsley and Johnson 2003; Williams 1999, 2011, 2016). For instance, Williams (1999), which I will refer to as Project 1 involves disabled people and their organisations, both as researchers and researched. In emancipatory models (Oliver 1992; Zarb 1992; Barnes 2003), the notion is that disabled people are in control of the research agenda, not necessarily carrying out the research. Nevertheless, one of the arguments for the value of peer research is that a disabled researcher will be able to identify with disabled participants, and thereby produce richer data (Nind and Vinha 2014). However, as illustrated by Roulston (this volume), when interviewer and interviewee share a knowledge domain, the production of data in the interview can be problematic. This chapter adds to the notions of relative epistemic domains, by exploring the ways in which interviewer and interviewee not only attend to epistemics, but also to each other’s wider identities.

Abstract

This chapter is about research in Disability Studies, where co-production, inclusivity and peer research are central ( Barton 2005; Walmsley and Johnson 2003; Williams 1999, 2011, 2016). For instance, Williams (1999), which I will refer to as Project 1 involves disabled people and their organisations, both as researchers and researched. In emancipatory models (Oliver 1992; Zarb 1992; Barnes 2003), the notion is that disabled people are in control of the research agenda, not necessarily carrying out the research. Nevertheless, one of the arguments for the value of peer research is that a disabled researcher will be able to identify with disabled participants, and thereby produce richer data (Nind and Vinha 2014). However, as illustrated by Roulston (this volume), when interviewer and interviewee share a knowledge domain, the production of data in the interview can be problematic. This chapter adds to the notions of relative epistemic domains, by exploring the ways in which interviewer and interviewee not only attend to epistemics, but also to each other’s wider identities.

Heruntergeladen am 21.9.2025 von https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1075/z.220.02wil/html?lang=de
Button zum nach oben scrollen