On the importance of ethnographic approaches to researching anti-ableist research cultures

To cite this work: Jones, D. P. (2025). On the importance of ethnographic approaches to researching anti-ableist research cultures. Disability Dialogues. Sheffield: iHuman, University of Sheffield. 

Daniel P. Jones is a disability scholar and creative practitioner working in interdisciplinary and collaborative ways on Tourette Syndrome and disabled-neurodivergent embodied experiences more broadly. His work has also covered creative methodological interventions and themes of inclusivity, access and pedagogy in Higher Education spaces internationally. He is currently one of the Research Associates on the Wellcome Anti-Ableist Research Cultures project, leading the Development strand of the project, which focuses on accessible academic events and inclusive research methodologies. 

Ethnography is something that has incredibly differing approaches depending on discipline - regardless of how we might define ethnography or ethnographic practice as researchers, it may be received and understood in a multitude of ways. I would argue that a lot of the research that I have found myself conducting has been done in ethnographic ways, whether in the research of Tourette Syndrome and public space (through being embedded into a Tourette Syndrome support group context throughout the entirety of the research process), or even in academic research into academic anti-ableist research cultures. For clarity, in discussing ethnographic approaches here I refer to the thin definition outlined by Hammersley (2017: 7) who treats “ethnography simply as a research strategy that can be employed by researchers adopting a wide variety of potentially conflicting commitments: theological or commercial, ‘critical’ or interpretive, interactionist or ethnomethodological, and so on.” As a Research Associate currently employed on the Wellcome Anti-Ableist Research Cultures (WAARC) project at the University of Sheffield, the work I do and the research I conduct is inevitably that of someone who adopts a variety of conflicting commitments. I am a disabled researcher who experiences the everyday ableism of academic employment, whilst conducting research that is housed in the very same institution that disabled people such as myself are subjected to. Whether in the context of research funding cuts resulting in research staff being overworked even more than they already are, even more significantly increasing the additional labour that disabled researchers are subject to (Hannam-Swain, 2018; Jones & Phoenix-Kane, 2025), or in the more general experience of discriminatory practice within academic institutions that other disabled colleagues (Lindsay & Fuentes, 2022), ableism is very much present in spaces like these - hence the value of and need for the WAARC project itself. My identity as a representative of my current employer but also as a disabled person myself are in a continuous state of conflict, and this is fundamental in contextualising my ethnographic approach to research. 

Conducting research on research culture, whilst very much embedded within that culture, is difficult but has proved particularly valuable for the WAARC project so far. Whilst I am deeply connected to the research topic, this is not an autoethnographic project specifically. Whilst my own context and experiences have inevitably informed the research, the project is far broader in its focus and context. 

Ethnographic approaches require attending to the everyday contexts in which people find themselves in. For example, I am researching and innovating new, inclusive methodological approaches to research and accessible approaches to the facilitating of academic events in the context of an institution of which the local University & College Union (UCU), at the time of writing, is actively balloting on strike action in response to funding cuts. Being contextually informed allows us to consider the ways in which this might influence our research findings. In a project that seeks to imagine a future of anti-ableist research culture, those most affected by the funding cuts may not be quite as concerned with hypothetical anti-ableist research cultures 5-10 years in the future, but more concerned about whether they will even have a job in a matter of months. Our imaginations of anti-ableist futures may be significantly influenced by these contexts. This context changes our priorities, and being ethnographically informed in this regard is important not only in order to work in inclusive ways for research participants, but also is a vital part of understanding the quantity and recurring themes that might arise within the data that we plan to use to inform the designing of an Inclusive Research Methods course and the production of guidance documents for facilitating accessible events within the University of Sheffield. 

An awareness of the everyday context of research participants in this regard has influenced our thinking about what we mean by ‘inclusive’ and ‘accessible’. These descriptors of research methods and events go beyond the inclusion of disabled participants, the accessibility auditing of event spaces, and so on. An ethnographic approach here leads us to consider that inclusive and accessible also means secure. How can we innovate and conduct research in inclusive ways within the context of all of this? Access and inclusion in events and research requires employment security in order to be accessible and inclusive not only for research participants but also for those conducting the research themselves. 

These are all questions that we are continuously discussing and responding to within the WAARC team, and are incredibly important in the current academic climate. Through drawing upon ethnographic approaches of being contextually informed, incredibly flexible, and actively engaged within research culture in this research we are taking an iterative approach to the very definitions of inclusivity and accessibility within our research into inclusive research methods and accessible events facilitation. Having these conversations in a time of concern over inclusivity and accessibility practices are incredibly important and we welcome any comments, queries, thoughts or questions about academic inclusivity and accessibility from whatever context you might find yourself in. 

References

Hammersley, M. (2018). What is ethnography? Can it survive? Should it?. Ethnography and education, 13(1), 1-17.

Hannam-Swain, S. (2018). The additional labour of a disabled PhD student. Disability & Society, 33(1), 138-142.

Jones, D. P. & Phoenix-Kane, D. (Forthcoming). Tourettic research of Tourette Syndrome: some reflections, Neurodiversity. 

Lindsay, S., & Fuentes, K. (2022). It is time to address ableism in academia: A systematic review of the experiences and impact of ableism among faculty and staff. Disabilities, 2(2), 178-203.