ArticleResearch in education (University of Manchester)2025
"No-one's contribution is more valid than another's": Committing to inclusive democratic methodologies.
Article in Research in education (University of Manchester), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sign language ideologies in deaf education in Trinidad and Tobago.Journal of deaf studies and deaf education · 2026Article
- Differences as potentials: A posthuman re-envisioning of disability and mobility.Health (London, England : 1997) · 2025Article
- The Depathologising University.Scandinavian journal of disability research : SJDR · 2025Article
- Cripping inquiry: breathing life into co-produced disability methodologies.Frontiers in sociology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this article, we explore the power and potential of democratic research methodologies in and beyond Critical Disability Studies research contexts. We centre two funded co-produced, participatory and arts-informed projects that have been co-designed and co-led with disabled young people and people living with chronic (respiratory) illness. We critically explore some key processes, which we suggest can mitigate forms of disablism and ableism inherent to research processes which traditionally make them undemocratic spaces of inequity. Our paper offers original analyses into the very notion of democratic research which have significant applications; driven as they are by the presence of disability. These include (i) Crip time - the recognition of (disabled) people's need for flexible forms of time; (ii) virtual methods and intimacies as routes to equity in research leadership; and (iii) flexible and slow/er research approaches. We also draw upon the ways in which the Covid-19 global pandemic has reshaped methodologies and approaches to inquiry. We advocate that, as research communities, we must come together to keep hold of these new inclusive and hybridised ways of relating and engaging in what are problematically framed as "post-Covid" times. We conclude by emphasising the importance of always committing to disrupting power dynamics through centring flexibility, accessibility and inclusivity across our inquiry with marginalised others.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.