In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Acquiescence and the desire to please are possible (if not probable) outcomes for people whose lives are controlled by others (Stalker 1998),and may also factor in the challenges posed by the notion of informed consent. Seen as critical to participatory and emancipatory approaches with labelled persons , Stalker (1998) and Rodgers (1999) query the demands of ethical review boards and others that “consent” be obtained from someone other than the labelled person her/himself, a requirement that reinforces the “eternal child” stereotype of persons labelled intellectually dis/Abled. Consent is further viewed as subject to the influence of market considerations and the purposes of academia and/or service providers, rather than to the ethical imperative of emancipatory approaches (Rodgers 1999). Nonetheless, the debate continues as to whether all non-speaking persons labelled intellectually dis/Abled are capable of understanding the concept of “consent.” Rodgers (1999) asserts that, with careful explanation, many can make informed decisions. For those with more profound impairments this may not be possible, thus necessitating reliance upon others to act on their behalf. We must then ask who is best suited to decide for the individual, and who makes this determination? Is it even acceptable to have a substitute decision maker? Does the need to access the individual’s story outweigh their right toself-determination? Are we making an ethical, moral,or pragmaticchoice? Again, who decides? Goodley admits there exists a wide chasm between the abstract theory of empowering the self-representation of a non-speaking person labelled intellectually dis/Abled and actually doing so (1996). A purview of a sample of the literature pertinent to research with persons labelled intellectually dis/Abled (speaking and non-speaking) illuminates a number of demonstrably effective strategies. The constraints imposed within this chapter permit little more than a naming of some of these. Very few people actually write their own auto/biographies unaided. Nonspeaking persons labelled intellectually dis/Abled, as a result of their limited access to speech and the written word, however, require more than a “ghost writer.” They may need an initiator, facilitator, interpreter, and scribe (Atkinson et al. 1999). A greater responsibility lies with the one hoping to access (or facilitate a labelled person’s wish to articulate) this material. The investigator must try harder; probe more fully; pay closer attention to the form of the questions, to the language being used, to what is being communicated ; ‘test’ the individual’s abilities to understand and express themselves prior to beginning; and explore the efficacy of amyriad of questioning techniques (Booth et al. 1996). Rapport, familiarity, and relationship, established over repeated contacts, are key constructs implicated in the efficacy Ann Fudge Schormans| 122 with which the investigator will be able to understand and correctly interpret such non-verbal communications as smiles, eye contact, facial expressions , body language, and looking away (Booth et al. 1996; Minkes et al. 1994). Attention to silences, both expressive (waiting to be broken) and closed (waiting to be passed over), may be warranted (Booth et al. 1996). A more creative, flexible, and less rigid approach is essential (Minkes et al. 1994): one utilizing not only the skills and tools of social science research, but those of the novelist, artist, and poet as well (Goodley 1996). Discretion must be granted to the investigator to approach each individual in a unique manner. In addition to recognizing labelled persons as competent communicators, able to participate in activities whereby their opinions, stories, choices, and preferences are sought, acceptance and facilitation of their idiosyncratic communication methods are a prerequisite to success. Visual cues, prompts or aides, in the form of photos (of people or places), pictures (of everyday objects), and/or concrete objects can increase response rate and the intelligibility of answers (Minkes et al. 1994; Stalker 1998). In opposition to accepted narrative methodological dictum, more direct and structured questioning may be demanded. Questions relating directly to the individual’s own experience; a menu approach to questioning, allowing the investigator to gradually eliminate alternatives until the most likely interpretation is achieved; an interview schedule consisting entirely of “yes”/ “no” questions; concrete questions pertaining to likes, dislikes, and activities ; or some combination of strategies are frequently the only means by which to elicit information (Booth et al. 1996; Minkes et al. 1994). Interviews eliciting a limited harvest of data, or awareness that some “answers” are not factually correct, does not invalidate the information provided (Rodgers 1999). Interviewing inarticulate subjects necessitates unorthodox methods (Booth et al. 1996). Perhaps...

Share