Capturing “Crip Desires” in “Crip Ways”: Developing Inclusive Qualitative Methodologies for Sexualities Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The intersection of disability and sexuality is an exciting area of scholarship that offers fresh perspectives and critical insights into how disabled people navigate desire, intimacy, and pleasure. This emerging field challenges traditional boundaries within the sociology of sexualities, calling into question who is included in this research and how normative assumptions shape discourse and methodology. Yet despite this growing literature, disabled people remain systematically marginalized in gender and sexuality research. Their voices are often excluded due to institutional gatekeeping and ableist stereotypes that infantilize or hypersexualize them. This article argues for inclusive, participatory qualitative methodologies—rooted in “crip” theoretical frameworks—that recognize disabled people as experts in their own lives. By embracing innovative approaches, such as arts-based and diverse communication methods, researchers can create more accessible spaces that allow disabled people to share their experiences on their own terms. Such approaches facilitate knowledge cocreation and foreground the complexity and richness of disabled people’s sexual and relational worlds. Although progress has been made, substantial gaps remain, particularly for those with intersecting marginalized identities. This article highlights the necessity of centering disabled voices in conversations about sexuality, thereby broadening the sociological imagination and fostering a future in which disabled people’s desires, pleasures, and relationships are not only acknowledged but also celebrated.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.101 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".