focused on abuse and because of the sensitivity of this topic there were concerns about the 'vulnerability' of the co-researchers with intellectual disability. This is a real concern and steps need to be put in place to assure the safety of the co-researchers but not disempower them in the process. Conversely, not including people in research makes them more vulnerable because their perspectives are not heard. Ethics process can thus lead to further disempowerment for co-researchers. Measuring the inclusiveness of research Several authors provide criteria against to measure the inclusiveness of research. Kidd and Edwards identify steps for ensuring true co-production as: 1) Is co-production right for research and team? 2) How should team communicate? 3) Who will lead the different stages of the research? Dubois et al (2011) provide three questions to determine the extent of community engagement in research. These are adapted here: individuals from the community provided with a voice (e.g. one representative, “[Are] … a small group of gatekeepers, or a random sample)? Do community members have authority to advise on the research protocol or to make key decisions regarding the research protocol? Are community members elevated to the level of co-investigators? Do they share resources and play an investigative role in the conduct research? Do they participate in data interpretation and dissemination?” If the answer to all of questions is yes then the research could be fairly considered as inclusive in nature. However, these still cover a wide range of research. Conclusion: Essential issues to consider for academics embarking on inclusive research This review shows that, while the literature describes several models, there is no consistently-used model of inclusive research. Given this, and the differing needs of projects and co-researchers, the ad-hoc model based on the ethical principles of inclusive
focused on abuse and because of the sensitivity of this topic there were concerns about the 'vulnerability' of the co-researchers with intellectual disability. This is a real concern and steps need to be put in place to assure the safety of the co-researchers but not disempower them in the process. Conversely, not including people in research makes them more vulnerable because their perspectives are not heard. Ethics process can thus lead to further disempowerment for co-researchers. Measuring the inclusiveness of research Several authors provide criteria against to measure the inclusiveness of research. Kidd and Edwards identify steps for ensuring true co-production as: 1) Is co-production right for research and team? 2) How should team communicate? 3) Who will lead the different stages of the research? Dubois et al (2011) provide three questions to determine the extent of community engagement in research. These are adapted here: “[Are] individuals from the community … provided with a voice (e.g. one representative, a small group of gatekeepers, or a random sample)? Do community members have authority to advise on the research protocol or to make key decisions regarding the research protocol? Are community members elevated to the level of co-investigators? Do they share resources and play an investigative role in the conduct research? Do they participate in data interpretation and dissemination?” If the answer to all of questions is yes then the research could be fairly considered as inclusive in nature. However, these still cover a wide range of research. Conclusion: Essential issues to consider for academics embarking on inclusive research This review shows that, while the literature describes several models, there is no consistently-used model of inclusive research. Given this, and the differing needs of projects and co-researchers, the ad-hoc model based on the ethical principles of inclusive
researchtoactioninclusiveresearchrapidreview.docx