Inclusive Research Methods Course

What kinds of research methods and approaches to research engage disabled people in collaborative and equitable ways? Find out more by taking our free Open Access Course

On

A new Inclusive Research Methods course for all researchers in TUOS.

Inclusive Research Methods course

Introduction

What follows is a set of guided discussion resources designed to support five sessions on inclusive research methods. Each guided discussion resource is built around videos co-produced with Speakup Self Advocacy, Rotherham. 

The videos were created as part of the Wellcome Anti-Ableist Research Culture project based at the University of Sheffield. 

These resources can be used by anyone interested in learning more about inclusive research methods. We hope it will be particularly useful to early-career researchers, as well as to experienced researchers interested in learning more about inclusive research methods and co-production. 

Each session plan has been designed using a flipped classroom approach, where participants engage with the materials in advance and use group time for structured discussion, reflection, and application. The resources are intended to support discussion-based learning through a scaffolded set of materials.

Each session includes:

  • A video from Speakup Self Advocacy on inclusive research methods
  • An overview of key ideas and themes from the video
  • A multimedia resource list
  • A list of questions to guide discussion and/or individual reflection. 

The sessions are as follows:

Session 1: What is Inclusive Research
Session 2: Listening to and understanding others
Session 3:  Everyone’s contributions are important 
Session 4: Organising accessible events
Session 5: Making Research Matter 

It is up to you how you use this resource. You might organise an online or in-person group with peers, students, or colleagues across five sessions. Alternatively, you could work through the materials independently, using the questions to support your own reflections on inclusive research methods. 

For each session, we have included more resources and more discussion/reflection questions than you are likely to need. We suggest you choose one to three resources, alongside Speakup’s video, based on your interests and context. If you are facilitating a group, you may prefer to select specific resources and questions in advance, or you may want group members to follow their own interests. You are welcome to adapt, replace, or extend the materials so they better suit your research context. Our priority is that participants engage with and reflect on Speakup’s videos. 

Feedback on the Inclusive Research Methods Course

This resource has been produced by Dr Nikita Hayden and Dr Lauren White. We hope you find this resource useful. If you do use these materials, we would welcome your feedback on how you have used them and your experience with them via email: n.hayden@sheffield.ac.uk and l.e.white@sheffield.ac.uk 

Suggested citation for this work : Hayden, N. & White, L. (2026). Inclusive Research Methods: Guided Discussion Resources. University of Sheffield. [https://sheffield.ac.uk/ihuman/waarc/anti-ableist-developments/inclusive-research-methods-course]

Session 1: What is inclusive research?

Summary of preparation tasks

Watch the video led by Speakup Self Advocacy entitled ‘What is Inclusive Research?’ (Link to Vimeo)

Think about your initial reflections from the ‘What is Inclusive Research?’ video and note them down. You can write, type, audio-record, or sketch your reflections. 

Select up to three resources to read, listen to, and/or watch from the resource list below ahead of your discussion. 

Our Ideas

We think that there are a number of areas raised from the ‘What is Inclusive Research?’ video. These are as follows: 

  • Getting Involved in the Research Process: consent; getting started; ethics; decision-making; ways to get involved; co-producing processes of involvement 
  • How to Support Each Other: access requirements; communication preferences; ways to share information 
  • Sharing Knowledge and Collecting Information Together: co-creating knowledge; shared understanding; not extracting information; analysis; reflexivity 
  • Meaningful Engagement: consistent engagement; showing up for each other; thinking about the distribution of power across the team 

Your Ideas

What stood out to you about this video? Are there any areas that you think are important? What might be missing? 

Continued Individual Reflection and Group Discussion

We have selected a list of questions for you to think about and respond to. These are: 

  1. What should (and could) meaningful engagement look like?
  2. What kinds of support might be needed for people to make informed choices about involvement?
  3. What should informed consent look like for co-researchers? 
  4. How should expectations, roles, and responsibilities be negotiated at the beginning?
  5. What does it mean to ‘start well’ in co-production relationships?
  6. If involvement starts later in the research project, can it be labelled as co-production or inclusive research?
  7. What is the difference between co-creating knowledge and extracting knowledge?

Further Resources 

Written resources

  • Aspis, S. (2022). Why are disabled people with learning difficulties being prevented from leading campaigns, projects and initiatives? Disability & Society, 37(1), 154-159. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2021.1895078 

  • Bandola-Gill, J., Arthur, M., & Leng, R. I. (2022). What is co-production? Conceptualising and understanding co-production of knowledge and policy across different theoretical perspectives. Evidence & Policy, 19(2), 275-298.  https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421X16420955772641 

  • Bottomley, M., Bradley, J., Clark, L., Collis, B., Daw Srdanovic, B., Farnsworth, V., Ferguson, A. V., Goodley, D., Fox, A., Hayden N. K., Lawthom, C., Lawthom, R.,  Magwood, C., McLean, R., Middleton, I., Owen, A., Prothero, M., Rice, S., Richards, S., Runswick-Cole, K., Scargill, K., Shankar, R., & Wood, T. A.(2024). Co-production with people with learning disabilities: Writing ethics guidelines together. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 52(4), 611-632. https://doi.org/10.1111/bld.12590

  • Egid, B. R., Roura, M., Aktar, B., Amegee Quach, J., Chumo, I., Dias, S., Hegel, G., Jones, L., Karuga, R., Lar, L., López, Y., Pandya, A., Norton, T. C., Sheikhattari, P., Tancred, T., Wallerstein, N., Zimmerman, E., & Ozano, K. (2021). ‘You want to deal with power while riding on power’: global perspectives on power in participatory health research and co-production approaches. BMJ Global Health, 6(11), e006978. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2021-006978 

  • Hewitt, O., Langdon, P. E., Tapp, K., & Larkin, M. (2023). A systematic review and narrative synthesis of inclusive health and social care research with people with intellectual disabilities: How are co-researchers involved and what are their experiences? Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 36(4), 681–701. https://doi.org/10.1111/jar.13100 

  • Nind, M. (2021). Chapter 1: Inclusive research defined. Inclusive Research. NCRM, Bloomsbury. [pdf will download here]

  • Stone, E. and Priestley, M. (1996), Parasites, Pawns and Partners: Disability Research and the Role of Non-Disabled Researchers, The British Journal of Sociology, 47(4), 699 - 716. https://doi.org/10.2307/591081 

  • Thomas, G. M. (2024). ‘Can You Tell Me What Ethics Means?’ : Collaboration, Voice, and Consent in (Inclusive) Research with People with Learning Disabilities. International Journal of Disability and Social Justice, 4(3), 4-22. https://doi.org/10.13169/intljofdissocjus.4.3.0004 

  • Walmsley, J., & Johnson, K. (2003). ‘Introduction: Reputable? Helpful?...and Inclusive?’ In Inclusive Research with People with Learning Disabilities: Past, Present and Futures [pp.9-20]. Jessica Kingsley Publishers. 

  • Williams, O., Robert, G., Martin, G. P., Hanna, E., & O’Hara, J. (2020). Is Co-production Just Really Good PPI? Making Sense of Patient and Public Involvement and Co-production Networks. In M. Bevir & J. Waring (Eds.), Decentring Health and Care Networks (pp. 213–237). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-40889-3_10

Audio and video resources

Session 2: Listening to and understanding others

Summary of Preparation Tasks

Watch the video led by Speakup Self Advocacy entitled ‘Listening to and understanding one another’.(Link to Vimeo)

Think about your initial reflections from the ‘Listening to and understanding one another’ video and note them down. You can write, type, audio-record, or sketch your reflections. 

Select up to three resources to read, listen to, and/or watch from the resource list below ahead of your discussion. 

Our Ideas

We think that there are a number of areas raised from the ‘Listening to and understanding one another’ video. These are as follows: 

  • Active listening and communication: Freirean dialogue*; creating safe spaces to speak up; building shared understandings
  • Working together as a team: Relational care ethics*; parity and equity amongst university and self-advocacy-based researchers; relational ways of knowing
  • ‘It’s ok to talk slowly’ : balancing not being condescending with inclusive communication; crip time*; not rushing; stopping, recapping, and checking in 
  • Taking over and interruptions: university researchers avoiding taking over and interrupting self-advocates; the generative and transformative potential of self-advocates taking control and ‘interrupting’ meetings; moving beyond positioning these interruptions as good vs. bad depending on who they come from; honouring diverse contributions; honouring non-normative ways of contributing, speaking, voicing, and sharing 

*Some of these concepts (Freirean dialogue, relational care ethics, and crip time) draw from critical theory and critical disability studies. We have found these to be useful ideas when co-producing research with self-advocates with learning disabilities. If these ideas are new to you,  we recommend selecting some of the readings and resources below to explore them.

Your Ideas

What stood out to you about this video? Are there any areas that you think are important? Did anything challenge how you usually think about listening and communication in research? What might be missing? 

Continued Individual Reflection and Group Discussion

We have selected a list of questions for you to think about and respond to. These are: 

  1. To what extent is it possible to fully share power in research? Is it possible to have true parity between university researchers and self-advocates or co-researchers?
  2. What conditions are needed to create a space where people feel able to share openly?
  3. What does it mean to approach research relationships through an ethics of care? How might care show up in everyday research practices?
  4. How do academic norms around speed, productivity, and efficiency conflict with inclusive practices?
  5. In what circumstances is interrupting harmful, and when might it be necessary or even productive? How can we navigate interruptions without reinforcing hierarchy?
  6. How does listening relate to power in co-produced research?
  7. How might dominant (Global North, White, Masculinist, academic) and normative communication styles exclude certain contributions and perspectives?

Further Resources

Written Resources

  • Bevan, C., Alderdice, F., Darby, S., Gilzean-Hughes, S., McLeish, J., Mulla, S., Plachcinski, R., Wilkinson, S., Williams, H., & Rowe, R. (2024). ‘The Listening Series’: increasing equity, diversity and inclusion in patient and public involvement and engagement for policy research by listening to and learning from under-represented groups. Research Involvement and Engagement 10, 71. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-024-00601-2

  • Brady, L. M., Miller, J., McFarlane-Rose, E., Noor, J., Noor, R., & Dahlmann-Noor, A. (2023). “We know that our voices are valued, and that people are actually going to listen”: co-producing an evaluation of a young people’s research advisory group. Research Involvement and Engagement, 9, 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-023-00419-4 

  • Cook, T., Brandon, T., Zonouzi, M., & Thomson, L. (2019). Destabilising equilibriums: harnessing the power of disruption in participatory action research. Educational Action Research, 27(3), 379–395. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2019.1618721 

  • Ellis, J., Atkinson, L., Glover, S., Kettle, J., Joseph, G., Hale, J., Jones, A., Coles, M., Bligh, L., Bridgens, R., O'Kane, C., Negus, J., Ali, H., Thompson, C., Waters, S., Coats, C., Gibson, B. J., Weiner, K., Lawson, R. & Liddiard, K. (2025). Cripping inquiry: breathing life into co-produced disability methodologies. Frontiers in Sociology, 10. 10:1600693. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2025.1600693 

  • Furlong, D. E. (2023). Enabling Crip Time With Digital Tools in Qualitative Inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry, 29(10), 1024-1032. https://doi.org/10.1177/10778004231163534 

  • Gauthier-Mamaril, É. (2024). MedHums101: What is Crip Time. The Polyphony: Conversations across the Medical Humanities. https://thepolyphony.org/2024/01/26/medhums-101-what-is-crip-time/ 

  • Groot, B., Haveman, A., & Abma, T. (2022). Relational, ethically sound co-production in mental health care research: epistemic injustice and the need for an ethics of care. Critical Public Health, 32(2), 230–240. https://doi.org/10.1080/09581596.2020.1770694 

  • Humphrey, H., & Coleman-Fountain, E. (2024). Creating Time for LGBT+ Disabled Youth: Co-production Outside Chrononormativity. Sociological Research Online, 29(1), 233-242. https://doi.org/10.1177/13607804231155001 

  • Istiko, S. N. (2025). Race-conscious conversations: A decolonial interviewing style. Qualitative Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/14687941251359085 

  • Kuri, E. & Schormans, A. F. (2022). Pivotal care practices: Care ethics in inclusive arts-based research with people labelled/with intellectual disability during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Arts in Psychotherapy, 80, 101920.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aip.2022.101920 

  • Lane, J., Ala-Kortesmaa, S., Peterson-Salahuddin, C., Lindstadt, C., Dutta, M. J., (2026). Authentic listening as relational praxis: theorizing from interpersonal, journalistic, ethnographic, and community work to a reflexive framework. Annals of the International Communication Association. https://doi.org/10.1093/anncom/wlag006

  • Liddiard, K., & Watts, L. (2022). Co-production, Participatory and Emancipatory Disability Research. In K. Liddiard, S. Whitney-Mitchell, K. Evans, L. Watts, R. Spurr, E. Vogelmann, K. Runswick-Cole & D. Goodley (Eds.) Living Life to the Fullest: Disability, Youth and Voice. Eerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/9781839094446

  • Lim, E. L. P., Thumboo, J., Gäre, B. & Allgurin, M., “I use more of active listening skills”- discourse of coproduction. Social Sciences & Humanities Open. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5476352 

  • Moreno-Cely, A., Cuajera-Nahui, D., Escobar-Vasquez, C. G. et al. (2021). Breaking monologues in collaborative research: bridging knowledge systems through a listening-based dialogue of wisdom approach. Sustainability Science, 16, 919–931 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-021-00937-8 

  • Phatshwane, K. (2024). Chapter 16: The art of talks and conversations in Indigenous research: decolonising interview methods. In L. Cox, A. Szolucha, A. A. Lozano, & S. Chattopadhyay (Eds.) Handbook of Research Methods and Applications for Social Movements (pp.214-229). Elgar Online. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781803922027.00023 

  • Runswick-Cole, K., Smith, M., Ryan, S., & Hatton, C. (2026). ‘Should we even have questions?’ From survey to exhibition – co-producing research about ‘mental health’ with carers and adults with learning disabilities. International Journal of Care and Caring, 10(1), 170-185. https://doi.org/10.1332/23978821Y2024D000000051

  • Smithson, H., Gray, P., & Jones, A. (2021). ‘They Really Should Start Listening to You’: The Benefits and Challenges of Co-Producing a Participatory Framework of Youth Justice Practice. Youth Justice, 21(3), 321-337. https://doi.org/10.1177/147322542094159 

  • Tronto, J. C. (1993). ‘For An Ethic of Care’. Moral Boundaries: A Political Argument for an Ethic of Care. Routledge. [pp.127-156].

  • Tronto, J. C. (1993). ‘An Ethic of Care’. Moral Boundaries: A Political Argument for an Ethic of Care. Routledge. [pp.101-126].

  • Tronto, J. C. (1998). An Ethic of Care. Generations: Journal of the American Society on Aging, 22(3), 15–20. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44875693 

  • von Köppen, M. (2025). Power Dynamics in Care-Full Research: Reflections on Ethically Critical Moments During a Participatory Research Project in a Care Home Setting. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 24. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069251399534 

  • Watson, R. (2024). Listening and learning for public engagement with research, Community Development Journal, 59(3), 572–589. https://doi.org/10.1093/cdj/bsad021 

Audio and video resources

Session 3:  Everyone’s contributions are important 

Summary of Preparation Tasks

Watch the video led by Speakup Self Advocacy entitled ‘Everyone’s contributions are important’. (Link to Vimeo)

Think about your initial reflections from the ‘Everyone’s contributions are important’’ video and note them down. You can write, type, audio-record, or sketch your reflections. 

Select up to three resources to read, listen to, and/or watch from the resource list below ahead of your discussion. 

Our Ideas

We think that there are a number of areas raised from the ‘Everyone’s contributions are important’ video. These are as follows: 

  • Recognising and Valuing Difference: the need for regular breaks and rest; crip time; taking part ‘in our own time, at our own pace, and in our own ways’; recognising different ways of contributing, recognising that everyone’s contributions are important. 
  • Communication: researchers need to learn about different modes of accessible communication; different ways to share ideas; Makaton; sign language; communication tablets; creative modes of communication; gestures; body language; communication cards; Augmentative and Alternative Communication; language and tone; time to share ideas in own ways.
  • Relationality: care ethics; learning together; supporting one another; valuing one another.
  • Equality and Inclusion: respect; parity; ‘everyone is equal like everyone else’; inclusive forms of communication; technology; digital inclusion; digital poverty; digital skills. 

Your Ideas

What stood out to you about this video? Are there any areas that you think are important? Did anything challenge how you usually think about how we (de)value different ways of contributing to research? What might be missing? 

Continued Individual Reflection and Group Discussion

We have selected a list of questions for you to think about and respond to. These are: 

  1. In the video we were asked to recognise that people take part in research discussions ‘in our own time, at our own pace, and in our own ways’. Do you have examples from your experience of recognising, or taking time to recognise, these differences in the ways people contribute?
  2. You will notice that the need for accessible communication keeps coming up in Speakup’s videos. Why is it that university researchers need to be repeatedly reminded about accessible communication by self-advocates, and what can we do about that?
  3. Thinking about in-person, online, and hybrid participatory research meetings, what approaches do you prefer and why? How can we support contributions across these formats?
  4. How can we learn together when doing co-production, rather than it being one person teaching another?
  5. What can we do to make sure everyone is included in research discussions?
  6. What’s the difference between being an equal partner in research, versus being included in discussions? 

Further Resources

Written resources

  • Armstrong, A., Cansdale, M., Collis, A. R., Collis, B. E., Rice, S., & Walmsley, J. (2019). What makes a good self-advocacy project? The added value of co-production. Disability & Society, 34(7–8), 1289–1311. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2019.1613960 

  • Bell, D. M. and Pahl, K. (2018), ‘Co-production: Towards a utopian approach’. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 21(1), 105–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2017.1348581 

  • Bruno, G., Lindblom, A., Tupou, J., Kewene, F., Waisman, T., & Magiati, I. (2025). Decolonizing autism research: Integrating Indigenous ways of knowing, being, and doing. Autism, 29(11), 2637–2643. https://doi.org/10.1177/13623613251382398 

  • Buell, S., Pounds, G., Langdon, P.,  & Bunning, K. (2024). Easy read health information for people with intellectual disabilities: A linguistic discourse analysis. What happens to language when it is simplified? Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 37(6), e13293. https://doi.org/10.1111/jar.13293 

  • Grove, N., Richards, S., Rice, S., Magwood, C., Collis, B., Martick, S., Schuppener, S., Kremsner, G., Tilley, E., & Walmsley, J. (2024). Big ideas that changed the world of disability: Exploring theory with self-advocates. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 52(4), 687–699. https://doi.org/10.1111/bld.12611 

  • Mietola, R., Miettinen, S., & Vehmas, S. (2017). Voiceless subjects? Research ethics and persons with profound intellectual disabilities. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 20(3), 263–274. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2017.1287872 

  • Nind, M. (2017). The practical wisdom of inclusive research. Qualitative Research, 17(3), 278-288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794117708123 

  • Samuels, E. (2017). Six Ways of Looking at Crip Time. Disability Studies Quarterly, 37(3). https://doi.org/10.18061/dsq.v37i3.5824 

  • Samways, B., & Heslop, P. (2025). Learning to Listen to Non-spoken Voices. Including Young People With Intellectual Disabilities Who are Non-speaking as Primary Participants in Qualitative Research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 24. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069251318746

  • Tregaskis, C., & Goodley, D. (2005). Disability Research by Disabled and Non-Disabled People: Towards a Relational Methodology of Research Production. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(5), 363–374. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645570500402439 

  • Tronto, J. C. (1993). ‘An Ethic of Care’. Moral Boundaries: A Political Argument for an Ethic of Care. Routledge. [pp.101-126].

  • Tronto, J. C. (1993). ‘For An Ethic of Care’. Moral Boundaries: A Political Argument for an Ethic of Care. Routledge. [pp.127-156].

  • Verhage, M., Lindenberg, J., Bussemaker, M., & Abma, T. A. (2024). The Promises of Inclusive Research Methodologies: Relational Design and Praxis. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 23. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069241230407 

Audio and video resources

Session 4: Organising accessible events

Summary of Preparation Tasks

Watch the video led by Speakup Self Advocacy entitled ‘Organising Accessible Events’. (Link to Vimeo)

Think about your initial reflections from the ‘Organising Accessible Events’ video and note them down. You can write, type, audio-record, or sketch your reflections. 

Select up to three resources to read, listen to, and/or watch from the resource list below ahead of your discussion. 

Our Ideas 

We think that there are a number of areas raised from the ‘Organising Accessible Events’ video. These are as follows: 

  • Bodily and Sensory Experiences: Sensory needs; overwhelm; mobility; leaky bodies; choice and autonomy to step out, to take breaks; embodied knowledge; bodyminds. 
  • Safeguarding and Safety: Risk aversion and risk management; bureaucracy, “vulnerability”; “risk”; care. 
  • Creating and Navigating Shared Spaces: Digital access and inclusion; hybrid formats; physical access needs; travel and transportation; sensory access needs; fair and equitable access to spaces; how spaces are used and shared; how disabled people transform spaces; access; quiet spaces. 
  • Communication: Easy Read; Plain English; maps; body language; British Sign Language; information in advance in accessible formats; sitting and talking together to plan and understand the event in advance; going around in circles (repetition). 

Your Ideas 

What stood out to you about this video? Are there any areas that you think are important? Did anything challenge how you usually think about organising accessible research events and activities? What might be missing? 

Continued Individual Reflection and Group Discussion

We have selected a list of questions for you to think about and respond to. These are: 

  1. What is the role of safeguarding and risk assessments in event planning, and who do they support?
  2. Hybrid formats are often seen as a middle ground for improving the accessibility of events. In what circumstances and for whom do hybrid events work well, or not as well? 
  3. In the video, the project manager, David, jokes about "going around in circles". Sometimes, event planning and co-production can involve cyclical conversations and repetition. In what ways are these cyclical conversations indicative of a failure of communication, or of something generative or important?
  4. What makes for an accessible event and to what extent are disability or disabled people involved in this process? 
  5. How do we ensure disabled people lead in the design, planning and delivery of accessible university events in truly inclusive and authentic ways?
  6. How can we build in a praxis of care into the way we plan and run events together?

Further Resources 

Written resources

  • Brocco, G., Meek, L. A., & Saffitz, J. L. (2025). Provincializing bodyminds, decolonizing disability. Social Science & Medicine, 376, 118048. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2025.118048

  • Burke, C. & Byrne, B. (Eds.) (2021). Social Research and Disability: Developing Inclusive Research Spaces for Disabled Researchers. Routledge. 

  • Chinn, D., & Pelletier, C. (2020). Deconstructing the co-production ideal: Dilemmas of knowledge and representation in a co-design project with people with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 45(4), 326–336. https://doi.org/10.3109/13668250.2020.1795820 

  • Ghai, A. (2023). Disabled Bodies, Pain, and the Question of Vulnerability. In M. Malhotra, K. Menon, & R. Johri (Eds.) The Gendered Body in South Asia. Routledge.

  • Gustafson, D. L., & Brunger, F. (2014). Ethics, “Vulnerability,” and Feminist Participatory Action Research With a Disability Community. Qualitative Health Research, 24(7), 997-1005. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732314538122 

  • Heath, M. (2025). Rejecting the Label of “Vulnerable Subjects:” How Rethinking Ethical Guidelines for Research With Participants With Physical Disabilities Can Lead to Better Research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 24. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069251368862  

  • Kerr, G.W., Stewart, H., Smith, S., & Ali-Knight, J. (2025). Unlock and revive: co-producing impactful and accessible online culture and heritage events for people living with dementia. International Journal of Event and Festival Management, 16(3), 402–425. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEFM-04-2025-0043 

  • Ktenidis, A., Adelaine, D., Fischer, N., Hassan, T., Martin, J.-M., & Mason, A. (2023). Accessibility Guide for university led events. Centre for Equity + Inclusion.  https://equityinclusionsheffield.co.uk/product/accessibility-guide/ 

  • Liabo, K., Ingold, A., & Roberts, H. (2018). Co-production with “vulnerable” groups: Balancing protection and participation. Health Science Reports, 1(3), e19. https://doi.org/10.1002/hsr2.19 

  • Liddiard, K., Runswick-Cole, K., Goodley, D., Whitney, S., Vogelmann, E., & Watts, L. (2018). “I was Excited by the Idea of a Project that Focuses on those Unasked Questions” Co-Producing Disability Research with Disabled Young People. Children & Society, 33(2), 154-167. https://doi.org/10.1111/chso.12308 

  • Mingus, M. (2011, May 5). Access intimacy: The missing link. Leaving Evidence. https://leavingevidence.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/access-intimacy-the-missing-link/ 

  • Mingus, M. (2017, April 12). Access intimacy, interdependence and disability justice. Leaving Evidence.    https://leavingevidence.wordpress.com/2017/04/12/access-intimacy-interdependence-and-disability-justice/ 

  • Nind, M. (2026). Methodological innovation, adaptation and disruption: the peculiar case of research with people with profound intellectual disabilities. International Journal of Social Research Methodology. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2026.2680971 

  • Price, M. (2015). The Bodymind Problem and the Possibilities of Pain. Hypatia, 30(1): 268-284. https://doi.org/10.1111/hypa.12127 

  • Verhage, M., Lindenberg, J., Bussemaker, M., & Abma, T. A. (2024). The Promises of Inclusive Research Methodologies: Relational Design and Praxis. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 23. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069241230407 

Audio and video resources

Session 5: Making Research Meaningful and Fun

Summary of Preparation Tasks 

Watch the video led by Speakup Self Advocacy entitled ‘Making Research Meaningful and Fun’. (Link to Vimeo)

You can also watch this bonus bloopers reel. (Link to Vimeo)

Think about your initial reflections from the ‘Making Research Meaningful and Fun’ video and note them down. You can write, type, audio-record, or sketch your reflections. 

Select up to three resources to read, listen to, and/or watch from the resource list below ahead of your discussion. 

Our Ideas 

We think that there are a number of areas raised from the ‘Making Research Meaningful and Fun’ video. These are as follows: 

  • Relationships and Care: Shared humanity; relational aspects of co-production; friendships; mutuality; equality; care; feminist care ethics; supporting one another; creating spaces for self-advocates to meet self-advocates from other organisations; getting to know one another in meaningful ways; authenticity.
  • Communication and Accessibility: Easy Read; avoid jargon; help of support workers to support communication; taking time, slowing down, not rushing; Plain English; learning from expertise of self-advocates on how to communicate better; checking understanding; humility; taking and responding to feedback; openness; humanising the collaborative process; shared understanding. 
  • Making Research Fun and Engaging: Doing engaging activities; creative methods; art, poetry, theatre; videos and multimedia; creating outputs together; humour; humility and self depreciation; joy; playfulness; silliness; recognising the importance of in-between moments; recognising the importance and generative value of tangents, mind wandering, and distractions; how to transform potentially boring processes of data collection and research into something meaningful, tangible, and genuinely collaborative. 
  • Power and Friction: Autonomy to leave a space; who sets the questions and direction of inquiry; who decides what is important and what’s meaningful; who gets to decide when a project is complete; acquiescence; conflict; misunderstanding; disagreement; resistance; denial; conflict and friction; lack of shared understanding; letting go of being the expert; recognising expertise across the team; what it meant to be ‘proper’ partners. 

Your Ideas

What stood out to you about this video? Are there any areas that you think are important? Did anything challenge how you usually think about fun and meaningfulness in research? What might be missing? 

Continued Individual Reflection and Group Discussion

We have selected a list of questions for you to think about and respond to. These are: 

  1. How can we embed more play and joy in our co-production work and research? 
  2. To what extent do we risk being patronising, unacademic, or non-rigorous when seeking to bring in more joy and fun to our co-production work? 
  3. Who gets to decide what counts as “meaningful” co-production and research?
  4. How can we resist co-production being co-opted or used superficially in academia?
  5. How can we best plan the entire project lifecycle, and how can we end research well?
  6. As researchers, how can we practice humility and openness in our research relationships?
  7. In your own inclusive research, have you experienced moments of friction or tension? What led to these moments, and were they resolved? 
  8. How can we transform potentially boring processes of data collection and research into something meaningful, tangible, and genuinely collaborative?

Further Resources

Written resources 

  • Benchekroun, R., Curtin, P., Keating, A., Cameron, C. & Ward, M. (2025). The role of reflexive and relational spaces in exploring the contradictions and challenges in co-producing research. Research for All, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.14324/RFA.09.1.09 

  • Dronkert, Leonie. (2023). Cripping collaboration: Science fiction and the access to disability worlds. Medical Anthropology, 42(8), pp.720–736. https://doi.org/10.1080/01459740.2023.2230345 

  • Dwornik, Ania. (2021). The interface of mad studies and indigenous ways of knowing: innovation, co-creation, and decolonization. Critical Social Work, 22(2), 25–39. https://doi.org/10.22329/csw.v22i2.7097 

  • Ellis, J., Atkinson, L., Glover, S., Kettle, J., Joseph, G., Hale, J., Jones, A., Coles, M., Bligh, L., Bridgens, R., O'Kane, C., Negus, J.,  Ali, H.,Thompson, C., Waters, S., Coats, C., Gibson, B., Weiner, K., Lawson, R.,and Liddiard, K. (2025) Cripping Inquiry: Breathing life into co-produced disability methodologies. Novel Sociological Methods and Practices of Engagement across Disability Communities [Special Issue], Frontiers in Sociology, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2025.1600693 

  • Flewitt, R., Jones, P., Potter, J., Domingo, M., Collins, P., Munday, E., & Stenning, K. (2018). ‘I enjoyed it because … you could do whatever you wanted and be creative’: three principles for participatory research and pedagogy. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 41(4), 372–386.https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2017.1405928

  • Kara, H. (2017). Identity and power in co-produced activist research. Qualitative Research, 17(3), 2017, 289-301. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794117696033  

  • Kill, C. (2022). The cruel optimism of co-production. Qualitative Research Journal, 22(1), 56–66. https://doi.org/10.1108/QRJ-02-2021-0019 

  • Knowles, S. E., Allen, D., Donnelly, A., Flynn, J., Gallacher, K., Lewis, A., McCorkle, G., Mistry, M., Walkington, P., & Drinkwater, J. (2021). More than a method: trusting relationships, productive tensions, and two-way learning as mechanisms of authentic co-production. Research Involvement and Engagement, 7(34). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-021-00262-5 

  • Liddiard, K., Runswick-Cole, K., Goodley, D., Whitney, S. Vogelmann, E., & Watts, L. (2018). “I was Excited by the Idea of a Project that Focuses on those Unasked Questions” Co‐Producing Disability Research with Disabled Young People. Children & Society, 33(2), 2019, 154-167. https://doi.org/10.1111/chso.12308 

  • Nguyen, X. T., Gonick, M., & Bui, T. (2021). Engaging girls with disabilities through cellphilming: Reflections on participatory visual research as a means of countering violence in the Global South. Childhood, 28(3), 380-394. https://doi.org/10.1177/09075682211020067 

  • Phillips, L., Christensen-Strynø, M. B., & Frølunde, L. (2022). Arts-based co-production in participatory research: harnessing creativity in the tension between process and product. Evidence & Policy, 18(2), 391-411. https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421X16445103995426 

  • Schwartz, A. E., Kramer, J. M., Cohn, E. S., & McDonald, K. E. (2020). “That Felt Like Real Engagement”: Fostering and Maintaining Inclusive Research Collaborations With Individuals With Intellectual Disability. Qualitative Health Research, 30(2), 236–249. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732319869620 

  • Steen, T., Brandsen, T., & Verschuere (2018). The Dark Side of Co-Creation and Co-Production. Co-Production and Co-Creation. Taylor & Francis Group. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/oa-edit/10.4324/9781315204956-45/dark-side-co-creation-co-production-trui-steen-taco-brandsen-bram-verschuere  

  • Walmsley, J., & Johnson, K. (2003). ‘What Matters to People with Learning Disabilities?’ In Inclusive Research with People with Learning Disabilities: Past, Present and Futures [pp.126-145]. Jessica Kingsley Publishers. 

  • White, L., Mason, W., Grant, V., Romaine, A., Cleary, G., & Tulloch, S. (2026). Student Stickers: Reflecting upon Joyful Learning, Co-Creation, and the Politics of Playful Dissemination. Sociological Research Online. https://doi.org/10.1177/13607804261451102 

  • Wong, M., Mishra, A., & Quyoum, A. (2026). ‘Zine-ing’ research otherwise: care, joy, and creative co-design with racially marginalised communities. Journal of Creative Research Methods, 2(1), 132-165. ttps://doi.org/10.1332/30502969Y2025D000000011 

  • Wright, L. H. V., Tisdall, K., & Moore, N. (2021). Taking emotions seriously: Fun and pride in participatory research. Emotion, Space and Society, 41(100836). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emospa.2021.100836 

Audio and video resources

  • Goodall, E. (Host). (2025, May 14). (Episode 116) Knowledge, power, and partnership: Research culture beyond academia [Audio podcast episode]. Research Culture Uncovered. https://open.spotify.com/episode/24OUalmyfvNOCvDXKVii11?si=44b4b8a582d54ea0  

  • Speakup Self Advocacy, Allot, M., Bradley, J., Farnsworth, V., Ferguson, C., Gill, D., Goodley, D., Hague, L., Hayden, N., Owen, A., Owen, R., White, L., & Wilson, M. (2026, August 2024). Making Research Meaningful and Fun [Video]. Vimeo. https://vimeo.com/1220835770?fl=tl&fe=ec 

  • Speakup Self Advocacy, Allot, M., Bradley, J., Farnsworth, V., Ferguson, C., Gill, D., Goodley, D., Hague, L., Hayden, N., & White, L. (2026, August 24). Anti-Ableist Research Culture bloopers reel. https://vimeo.com/1220834521?fl=tl&fe=ec 

Inclusive forms of writing

A key aim of inclusive research methods is to find ways of writing and communication that are amenable to a host of communities. WAARC has created a number of examples

Related information

Read more about our non-academic partners

Robot reading books

iHuman

How we understand being ‘human’ differs between disciplines and has changed radically over time. We are living in an age marked by rapid growth in knowledge about the human body and brain, and new technologies with the potential to change them.

Centres of excellence

The University's cross-faculty research centres harness our interdisciplinary expertise to solve the world's most pressing challenges.

Centres of excellence