Negotiating Research Participant Consent With, for and by Adults With Developmental Disabilities in Interaction With Their Third-Party Consent Providers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We illuminate third-party research participant consent with, for, and by adults with developmental disabilities by examining consent as an iterative, ongoing process. We use an instrumental case study of three adults with developmental disabilities who, together with their third-party consent providing parents, participated in a broader conversation and video analysis study of how family members are part of decision-making by adults with developmental disabilities. Adults with developmental disabilities comprising our case demonstrated discomfort that left us with questions about the relational nature of third-party consent. We performed a directed content analysis of transcripts and video data corresponding to moments of discomfort, resulting in categories of one- distress, two- non-disclosure, and three- evasion. Our findings illustrate ambiguities where consent was at stake and where there appeared to be no ultimate “Yes” or “No” interpretation. We conclude that expressions of resistance to research participation by adults with developmental disabilities displayed in our data were assertions of autonomy that occurred in relation, yet ran counter to, the agendas of researchers and third-party consent providing parents. We offer recommendations for researchers in the developmental disability field and for qualitative researchers more broadly who might encounter similar ambiguities amidst the relational workings of consent. Greater analytic attention to the relational dynamics of consent has potential to expand ethical commitments of qualitative researchers beyond the limited range of meanings offered in ethics board approvals and signed consent forms.
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 | 0.105 | 0.137 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.019 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".