Thinking and Doing Consent and Advocacy in Disabled Children’s Childhood Studies Research

  • Jill Pluquailec
Chapter

Abstract

  • Disabled children’s childhoods have been absent in broader work around participatory research with children.

  • Research with disabled children and their families involves distinct ethical considerations and different ethical starting points.

  • Ethics in disabled children’s childhood studies requires a resistance of narrow conceptualisations of participation and consent.

  • Researchers must work with children and families around ethics in research which values their everyday lives in and of themselves.

References

  1. Beresford, B., Tozer, R., Rabiee, P., & Sloper, P. (2004). Developing an Approach to Involving Children with ASD in a Social Care Research Project. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32(4), 180–185. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-3156.2004.00318.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Billington, T. (2006). Autism: Speculation, Knowledge or Understanding? Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 27(2), 275–285. doi: 10.1080/01596300600676292.Google Scholar
  3. Bulmer, M. (2008). The Ethics of Social Research. In N. Gilbert (Ed.), Researching Social Life (3rd ed., pp. 145–161). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  4. Butler, J. (2004). Precarious Life: The Powers of Mourning and Violence. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  5. Chang, H. (2008). Autoethnography as Method (Vol. 1). Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press Inc.Google Scholar
  6. Christensen, P., & James, A. (2008). Introduction: Researching Children and Childhood Cultures of Communication. In P. Christensen & A. James (Eds.), Research with Children: Perspectives and Practices (2nd ed., pp. 1–10). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Christensen, P., & O’Brien, M. (Eds.). (2003). Children in the City: Home Neighbourhood and Community. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (2000). Narrative Inquiry: Experience and Story in Qualitative Research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  9. Clark, A. (2005). Listening to and Involving Young Children: A Review of Research and Practice. Early Child Development and Care, 175(6), 489–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Curran, T. (2013). Disabled Children’s Childhood Studies: Alternative Relations and Forms of Authority? In T. Curran & K. Runswick-Cole (Eds.), Disabled Children’s Childhood Studies: Critical Approaches in a Global Context (pp. 121–135). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Curran, T., & Runswick-Cole, K. (2013). Disabled Children’s Childhood Studies Critical Approaches in a Global Context. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Curran, T., & Runswick-Cole, K. (2014). Disabled Children’s Childhood Studies: A Distinct Approach? Disability & Society, 29(10), 1617–1630. doi: 10.1080/09687599.2014.966187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Danby, S. J. (2002). The Communicative Competence of Young Children. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 27(3), 25–30.Google Scholar
  14. Davies, B., Browne, J., Gannon, S., Honan, E., Laws, C., Mueller-Rockstroh, B., & Petersen, E. B. (2004). The Ambivalent Practices of Reflexivity. Qualitative Inquiry, 10(3), 360–389. doi: 10.1177/1077800403257638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Davis, J. (2012). Conceptual Issues in Childhood and Disability: Integrating Theories from Childhood and Disability Studies. In N. Watson, A. Roulstone, & C. Thomas (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Disability Studies (pp. 414–425). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Davis, J., Watson, N., & Cunningham-Burley, S. (2008). Learning the Lives of Disabled Children: Developing a Reflexive Approach. In P. Christensen & A. James (Eds.), Research with Children: Perspectives and Practices (pp. 201–224). London: Routledge Flamer.Google Scholar
  17. Denzin, N. K. (1996). Interpretive Ethnography: Ethnographic Practices for the 21st Century. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  18. Ellis, C. S. (2007). Telling Secrets, Revealing Lives Relational Ethics in Research with Intimate Others. Qualitative Inquiry, 13(1), 3–29. doi: 10.1177/1077800406294947.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Goodley, D. (2014). Dis/Ability Studies: Theorising Disablism and Ableism. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Goodley, D., & Runswick-Cole, K. (2014). Becoming Dishuman: Thinking About the Human Through Dis/ability. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 37, 1–15. doi: 10.1080/01596306.2014.930021.Google Scholar
  21. Goodley, D., Runswick-Cole, K., & Liddiard, K. (2016). The DisHuman Child. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 37(5), 770–784. doi: 10.1080/01596306.2015.1075731.Google Scholar
  22. Hackett, A. (2014). Zigging and Zooming All Over the Place: Young Children’s Meaning Making and Movement in the Museum. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 14(1), 5–27. doi: 10.1177/1468798412453730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hackett, A. (2015). Young Children as Wayfarers: Learning About Place by Moving Through It. Children and Society. doi: 10.1111/chso.12130.
  24. Homan, R. (1992). The Ethics of Open Methods. British Journal of Sociology, 43, 321–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. James, A., & Prout, A. (1997). Constructing and Reconstructing Childhood: Contemporary Issues in the Sociological Study of Childhood. London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  26. Mayall, B. (2008). Conversations with Children: Working with Generational Issues. In P. Christensen & A. James (Eds.), Research with Children: Perspectives and Practices (2nd ed., pp. 109–124). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. McGuire, A. (2010). Disability, Non-disability and the Politics of Mourning: Re-conceiving the ‘We’. Disability Studies Quarterly, 30(3/4). Retrived from http://dsq-sds.org/.
  28. Medford, K. (2006). Caught with a Fake ID Ethical Questions About Slippage in Autoethnography. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(5), 853–864. doi: 10.1177/1077800406288618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Morris, J. (1998). Don’t Leave Us Out: Involving Disabled Children and Young People with Communication Impairments. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation/York Publishing Services.Google Scholar
  30. Morris, J. (2003). Including All Children: Finding Out About the Experiences of Children with Communication and/or Cognitive Impairments. Children & Society, 17(5), 337–348. doi: 10.1002/CHI.754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pulsford, M. (2014, June 19–20). Rupturing Narratives: Material-Discursive Entanglements and the Becoming-Other of Male Primary Teachers. Paper Presented at Troubling Narratives: Identity Matters at Huddersfield University.Google Scholar
  32. Rabiee, P., Sloper, P., & Beresford, B. (2005). Doing Research with Children and Young People Who Do Not Use Speech for Communication. Children & Society, 19(5), 385–396. doi: 10.1002/chi.841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Smith, J. C. (2016a). The Embodied Becoming of Autism and Childhood: A Storytelling Methodology. Disability & Society, 31(2), 180–191.Google Scholar
  34. Smith, J. C. (2016b). The Talking, Being, and Becoming of Autism, Childhood, and Dis/ability. Unpublished PhD Thesis, The University of Sheffield.Google Scholar
  35. Titchkosky, T. (2007). Reading and Writing Disability Differently: The Textured Life of Embodiment. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  36. Tolich, M. (2010). A Critique of Current Practice: Ten Foundational Guidelines for Autoethnographers. Qualitative Health Research, 20(12), 1599–1610. doi: 10.1177/1049732310376076.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Watson, N. (2012). Theorising the Lives of Disabled Children: How Can Disability Theory Help? Children & Society, 26(3), 192–202. doi: 10.1111/j.1099-0860.2012.00432.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jill Pluquailec
    • 1
  1. 1.Sheffield Hallam UniversitySheffieldUK

Personalised recommendations