Research methods: Inclusive methods by Sanchita Sinha

The session on inclusive research methods in the Disability Matters course helped me understand how disability studies is not only about learning theories related to disability, but also about changing the way research itself is done. Earlier, I used to think that research mainly involved collecting information from participants and analyzing it objectively. However, this session made me realize that research is deeply connected with issues of power, ethics, representation, and knowledge production. The lecture by Dr Nikita Hayden and Dr Ankita Mishra focused on how researchers can ethically and inclusively engage with disabled people while researching sensitive topics. The session especially emphasized the importance of moving from doing research “on” people to doing research “with” people, which I found extremely meaningful because it challenges the traditional hierarchy between researchers and participants.

The presenters explained that inclusive research methods include approaches such as participatory research, emancipatory research, peer research, community research, activist scholarship, and decolonising research (Nind, 2014). These approaches focus on collaboration and participation instead of treating participants as passive subjects. This idea is very important in disability studies because disabled people have historically been excluded from decisions regarding research about their own lives. Traditional research often positioned researchers as experts while disabled people were seen only as “subjects” who provided data. Inclusive research challenges this unequal relationship by recognizing disabled people as knowledge holders with valuable lived experiences. I think this shift is necessary because people who actually experience disability understand their realities much better than outside observers. Their voices should therefore be central in research rather than secondary.

One of the strongest themes throughout the session was the idea of power. The presenters discussed how power exists in every stage of research. According to Given (2008), there is a distinction between “power to” and “power over.” This helped me understand that power is not always negative; it can also be empowering when shared responsibly. However, in research settings, there are often unequal power relations because researchers usually decide the questions, methods, interpretation of data, and final conclusions. Kelly (2010) further explains that research inherently contains power imbalances, especially when working with marginalized or “vulnerabilised” groups. The use of the word “vulnerabilised” instead of “vulnerable” was particularly interesting to me because it shifts attention from individuals being naturally weak to the social systems that create vulnerability in the first place. Disabled people are often made vulnerable due to exclusion, discrimination, inaccessible systems, and social attitudes rather than because of their impairments alone.

The discussion about power also connected with intersections such as gender, race, caste, class, education, and geography. This made me think about the Indian context where disability cannot be understood separately from social inequalities. For example, a disabled woman from a lower caste background may face multiple layers of marginalization simultaneously. Therefore, inclusive research must take intersectionality seriously instead of treating disabled people as one homogeneous group. I appreciated how the session did not present disability in isolation but connected it with broader social structures and inequalities. This reflects the critical disability studies perspective, which focuses on challenging oppressive systems instead of viewing disability only as a medical condition.

Another concept that deeply stood out to me was reflexivity. The presenters described reflexivity as “reflection plus action,” meaning researchers must constantly examine their own biases, assumptions, privileges, and positions while conducting research. Researchers are never completely neutral because their identities and experiences shape how they interact with participants and interpret findings. The session also discussed positionality, including insider, outsider, and in-betweener perspectives. I think this is especially important in disability research because researchers who do not reflect on their own privilege may unintentionally dominate participants’ voices. Reflexivity therefore becomes an ethical responsibility. As a psychology student, I found this particularly relevant because psychology research has historically been criticized for speaking over marginalized communities instead of listening to them.

The session also explored inclusive and creative methods of data collection. Kara (2020) argues that creativity in research involves intuition, imagination, and wonder rather than only intellectual thinking. The presenters explained that arts-based methods can help when researching sensitive topics, working with children, engaging participants with cognitive impairments, or communicating across language barriers. This included activities like creative workshops, illustrations, animations, captioning together, storytelling, and zine making. I found this part extremely refreshing because it challenged my assumption that research must always be formal, text-heavy, and academic in style. Creative methods can make research more accessible and emotionally expressive for participants. For example, some people may struggle to communicate their experiences verbally but may express themselves more comfortably through drawings, photographs, or storytelling. Such methods can therefore create safer and more inclusive spaces for participation.

I also liked how the presenters gave practical examples of making research more accessible. One example was transforming standard participant information sheets into multilingual and multimodal formats. This may seem like a small change, but it is actually very important because many research processes unintentionally exclude people through inaccessible language or rigid formats. If participants cannot fully understand the research process, then informed consent cannot truly exist. The discussion about fully informed consent, assent processes for children, and consultees for people who may lack the capacity to consent showed how ethics in practice is often more complex than institutional ethics guidelines. This distinction between institutional ethics and ethics in practice was very eye-opening for me. Institutional ethics often focuses on paperwork and formal approval, whereas ethics in practice requires continuous care, sensitivity, and flexibility during real interactions with participants.

The presenters also spoke about participatory and transformative research approaches inspired by thinkers like Paulo Freire (1972). Freire believed that marginalized communities should actively participate in creating knowledge rather than being passive recipients. This idea aligns strongly with disability activism because disabled people have long demanded “nothing about us without us.” Inclusive research therefore becomes a political and ethical act that challenges traditional academic hierarchies. Instead of treating disabled people as objects of study, participatory research recognizes them as co-researchers and collaborators. I think this approach can make research more authentic because participants are directly involved in shaping research questions, interpreting findings, and disseminating outcomes.

Another interesting aspect of the session was the discussion on dissemination and open science. Usually, research findings remain limited to academic journals that many ordinary people cannot access. However, the presenters discussed more inclusive forms of dissemination such as animations, illustrations, and zines. This made me realize that accessibility is not only important during data collection but also during the sharing of findings. If research is meant to benefit communities, then communities should be able to understand and access it. The idea of “cripping and decolonising open science” was especially powerful because it challenges dominant academic systems that privilege Western, elite, and able-bodied ways of producing knowledge. Inclusive dissemination therefore becomes part of resisting exclusion within academia itself.

Personally, this session changed the way I think about research in psychology and social sciences. Earlier, I believed that objectivity and distance were the most important qualities in research. However, this session showed me that empathy, collaboration, reflexivity, and accessibility are equally important. Research cannot be ethical if participants feel unheard, overpowered, or excluded. Inclusive methods do not weaken research; instead, they make research richer and more meaningful because they value lived experiences and diverse forms of knowledge. I also realized that research itself can either reproduce oppression or challenge it depending on how it is conducted.

At the same time, inclusive research also raises ethical challenges. For example, balancing participation with confidentiality can sometimes be difficult, especially in community-based research where participants may know each other personally. Researchers must also avoid tokenism, where disabled people are included only symbolically rather than meaningfully. Another challenge is ensuring that co-production does not become emotionally exhausting for participants who may already face barriers in daily life. Researchers therefore need to be careful not to place excessive responsibility on marginalized participants while claiming to be “inclusive.” Genuine inclusion requires time, accessibility, resources, and constant reflection.

Overall, this session helped me understand that inclusive research is not simply a method but a mindset and ethical commitment. It requires researchers to question traditional power structures, value lived experiences, and create accessible spaces for participation. The ideas discussed in the session were especially meaningful in the field of disability studies because disabled people have historically been silenced within academic and social systems. Inclusive methods therefore become a way of restoring agency and dignity to marginalized communities. As someone studying psychology, I think these lessons are extremely important because future researchers and professionals must learn to work collaboratively and ethically rather than speaking for others. This session ultimately showed me that research should not only produce knowledge but also promote justice, inclusion, and human dignity.

References

Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Penguin Books.

Given, L. M. (2008). The SAGE encyclopedia of qualitative research methods. SAGE Publications.

Kara, H. (2020). Creative research methods in the social sciences: A practical guide (2nd ed.). Policy Press.

Kelly, B. (2010). Exploring the relationships between disabled people and professionals in health and social care. Policy Press.

Nind, M. (2014). What is inclusive research? Bloomsbury Academic.