Co‐researching with People who Have Intellectual Disabilities: Insights From a National Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Inclusive research with people with intellectual disabilities is growing internationally but with few studies examining its feasibility. METHODS: In undertaking a national study exploring what life was like in Ireland for people with intellectual disabilities, a community of practice was developed involving a core group of co-researchers: five people with intellectual disabilities, four university researchers and three service support staff. An additional cadre of 15 co-researchers with intellectual disabilities was recruited to undertake data gathering and analysis with 23 focus groups involving 168 participants. The research experience was documented through oral feedback, progress reports, minutes and a project review. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The key learning is documented arising from the setting up of an inclusive advisory group and implementation of each of six research steps. The study demonstrates feasibility and the added value of university co-researchers recruiting and developing skills together with co-researchers with intellectual disabilities. Topics for further research and development are identified. This paper tells you about how people with intellectual disabilities worked with a group of university researchers. Both groups were called co-researchers and together they ran 23 focus groups across Ireland. People with intellectual disabilities talked about their lives and what could make them better. They said they needed to have a good place to live; a job; enough money; relationships; and acceptance as respected citizens. The university co-researchers wrote about what it was like doing research together and how people with intellectual disabilities joined the advisory group; decided on the questions; ran focus groups; and presented findings. Together they grew into a community of researchers where the university co-researchers shared their research skills and people with intellectual disabilities shared what it was like living with a disability. They both saw great value in working together and plan to work more to make this type of research happen.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".