Assessing the quality of online resources for inclusive research methods: Insights from a 2024 rapid review

Abstract

New academic researchers need resources to effectively learn how to conduct inclusive research and meaningfully engage co-researchers with intellectual and developmental disabilities. This rapid review aims to address: What online resources are available in 2024 for new academic researchers seeking to learn about inclusive research methods and what is the quality of those resources based on a set of criteria for assessing quality in inclusive research? A search of the literature was conducted. In total, 11 resources were included. A checklist with 11 items was developed to assess the quality of these resources. Results suggest a range of checklist criteria met among the resources. Among the 11 checklist items, some were consistently met while others were frequently overlooked. This study brings to light a need for addressing how senior academic researchers make resources for complex research methods available to others. Additionally, it demonstrates the importance of developing comprehensive, self-paced training with implementation support.

Keywords

inclusive research intellectual and developmental disabilities co-researchers academic researchers online resources

Introduction

Inclusive research empowers persons with intellectual disabilities typically excluded from research to contribute their experiences to studies, addressing issues relevant to them and fostering social change (Walmsley et al., 2018). This approach emerged from an emancipatory movement that wants to ensure that research is conducted with the individuals who are impacted by the research questions (Johnson and Walmsley, 2003). Key components of inclusive research involve individuals with intellectual disabilities having ownership of research questions, feeling like the research is authentic and has an impact on their lives, collaborating in the research process, having control over outcomes, and accessing research materials (Johnson and Walmsley, 2003; Nind, 2016).

Involving individuals with intellectual disabilities in the research process as co-researchers is an effective way to access knowledge that may otherwise be unreachable (Walmsley, 2001; Walmsley et al., 2018). Involving co-researchers with lived experience significantly benefits academic researchers by making participants feel more comfortable during data collection, deepening the meaning of themes in the data analysis process, enhancing the validity of research results and reducing researcher bias (Chouinard and Cousins, 2009; Frankena et al., 2015; O'Brien et al., 2014; Vlot-van Anrooij et al., 2022). People with intellectual and developmental disabilities can contribute their lived experience as co-researchers and provide useful perspectives that the academic researcher does not have. Co-researchers with intellectual disabilities also experience multiple benefits, such as meaningful occupation, opportunities for skill development, empowerment, building friendships, feeling valued, and increased confidence (Nind and Vinha, 2014; St. John et al., 2018; Williams and Simons, 2005).

Despite the well-known benefits of inclusive research, resources for learning how to use these methods and meaningfully engage co-researchers are lacking (Garratt et al., 2022; Ghaderi et al., 2023). The Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group (EPOC) defines educational resources as guidelines, audiovisual resources, electronic publications, and educational computer programs (Wensing et al., 2013, as cited in Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Review Group, 2002). This definition will be applied throughout the paper to support the rationale for including various resources. The limited guidance in the literature is challenging for new academic researchers in the field. This is particularly challenging for graduate students who may struggle to replicate studies and adopt inclusive methodologies. These challenges include effectively involving co-researchers with intellectual and developmental disabilities, managing confidentiality threats, using appropriate terminology, not being patronizing, ensuring levels of inclusion, and adhering to authorship standards (Cobigo et al., 2019; Garcia-Lee et al., 2024; Hewitt et al., 2023; Riches et al., 2020; Strnadová and Walmsley, 2018; van Den Bogaard et al., 2024). In addition, academic researchers engaging in inclusive research with co-researchers with intellectual and developmental disabilities must address population-specific ethical considerations and make sure there is enough time and funding for their unique needs and contributions (Ghaderi et al., 2023; Walsh et al., 2024).

While experienced and senior academic researchers may be well-versed in inclusive research practices, new academic researchers need resources to effectively learn how to conduct inclusive research and engage co-researchers with intellectual and developmental disabilities. This prompted us to learn if there are any resources for academic researchers on inclusive research with co-researchers with intellectual and developmental disabilities available online in 2024. It is important to specify that although resources for co-researchers are essential (St. John et al., 2018), this review focuses only on resources for academic researchers. When searching for the availability of these resources, it is crucial to also investigate their quality. To our knowledge, there is no checklist for determining the quality of an inclusive research study but one may be derived from Ghaderi et al.’s (2023) scoping review on how co-researchers with intellectual and developmental disabilities are included in research. This review suggested that many important elements are often missed or overlooked in inclusive research publications. For instance, inclusive research involving co-researchers with intellectual or developmental disabilities often lacks detailed and information in the following areas (Ghaderi et al., 2023):

• methodological detail and consistency in roles and titles;

• strategies used to recruit co-researchers with disabilities;

• rationale for excluding co-researchers with disabilities from certain phases of the research;

• involvement of co-researchers at each step of the research process or reasons for exclusion and;

• reporting on the level of support needs of the co-researchers.

Overall, this rapid review aims to provide an appraisal of the quality of available resources for academic researchers on inclusive research with co-researchers with intellectual and developmental disabilities. We asked the following research question: What resources are available online in 2024 for new academic researchers to learn about conducting inclusive research methods? What is the quality of available resources based on the criteria proposed by Ghaderi et al. (2023)?

Methods

Graduate students looking for resources on conducting inclusive research and effectively engaging co-researchers with intellectual and developmental disabilities initiated this review. A rapid review approach was used to achieve the study’s aim of finding resources available in 2024 in a timely manner. Rapid reviews are a type of knowledge synthesis aimed at generating evidence in a resource-effective way (Hamel et al., 2021). Unlike comprehensive systematic reviews which can take years to complete (Ganann et al., 2010; Khangura et al., 2012), rapid reviews are well-known to quickly produce information (Khangura et al., 2012). This approach is particularly advantageous for informing current graduate students and new academic researchers about the current state of available resources in 2024. It provides a snapshot of available resources that will have immediate practical implications. Evidence to support inclusive research practices is likely to evolve quickly and this review’s timeline ensures that new academic researchers are well-informed with the current state of knowledge regarding inclusive research resources.

Search strategy

A search was conducted in May 2024 using scientific databases to identify peer-reviewed sources and internet search engines to locate grey literature. Additional resources were identified through the author’s knowledge of authoritative sources in intellectual and developmental disabilities. The literature search was stopped when a point of saturation was reached and no new relevant resources were found despite extensive searching.

Scientific databases

Scientific database searches included Google Scholar, Web of Science and Scholars Portal. These databases were purposefully selected for their institutional and open access as well as their potential to inform the research question. Keywords were used to create search strings within the databases. The initial search terms used in Google Scholar were (“Intellectual disabilities” OR “Developmental disabilities” OR “intellectual and developmental disabilities”) AND (“Inclusive research” OR “Participatory research” OR “Patient-oriented research” OR “Inclusive evaluation” OR “Collaborative research” OR “Emancipatory research”) AND (“Resource” OR “Guideline” OR “Training” OR “Workshop” OR “Course”). This search string was adjusted for Web of Science and Scholars Portal based on their search capabilities.

Search engines

The search engines used to identify grey literature for this study included Google and Duck Go. The initial search terms used on Google were the same as those used on Google Scholar (see above). Google was selected due to its powerful search engine function, especially when searching for grey literature (Deakin University, 2021). Steps were taken to avoid bias in the search results such as using the search engine in incognito mode to prevent tracking or history influence. Bias was further prevented with Duck Go. Duck Go was used as a second search engine to validate the results as it does not track search history or create user profiles based on online activity.

Selection criteria

A total of 28 resources in the English language were identified using the search strategy through a purposeful sampling method to select resources relevant to the research aim (Sandelowski, 2000). For the purpose of this study, resources include any guidelines, audiovisual resources, electronic publications, and educational computer programs intended to help academic researchers conduct inclusive research with co-researchers with intellectual and developmental disabilities. The relevant resources were identified through three different approaches by a single reviewer and included: scientific database searching (n = 2), search engine searching (n = 21), and other sources (n = 5) (See Figure 1). The sources were transferred into an Excel sheet where a charting process was used to document the organization or author, the type of resource and the title. After removing duplicates (n = 3), 25 resources were assessed for eligibility based on inclusion criteria. The inclusion criteria comprised of:

(1) publication type: online resources on inclusive research with co-researchers with intellectual and developmental disabilities for academic researchers such as guidelines, audiovisual resources, electronic publications, and educational computer programs

(2) publication date: all years but available to academic researchers in 2024;

(3) publication language: English;

(4) publication source: peer-reviewed journals, gray literature, authoritative sources, or reputable organizations in the field of intellectual and developmental disabilities.

Figure 1.

PRISMA flow diagram.

Specific publication dates are not listed because the inclusion criteria require the resource to be available in 2024, not necessarily published in 2024. Ultimately, 14 resources were excluded, and 11 resources were included in the rapid review based on the inclusion criteria.

Checklist development

Drawing on the findings of Ghaderi et al. (2023), a comprehensive checklist was created to evaluate if current resources on inclusive research are designed effectively to engage people with intellectual and developmental disabilities in the research process (See Table 1). This checklist captures valuable insights for academic researchers when doing inclusive research involving co-researchers with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Two of the authors assessed the checklist for reliability. The first author initially developed the checklist and the second author reviewed it. All discrepancies were discussed and addressed to enhance the checklist’s quality.

Table 1.

Checklist for Evaluating Resources on Inclusive Research with Co-Researchers with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities based on Ghaderi et al. (2023).

1. Principled commitment: Principled commitment to involving co-researchers with intellectual and developmental disabilities extensively in research teams and processes

2. Methodological detail: Provide sufficient methodological detail to understand what occurs

3. Describe roles: Describe the roles of co-researchers with intellectual and developmental disabilities and how they are included in the research

4. Involvement across phases: Involve co-researchers with intellectual and developmental disabilities in all phases of research whenever possible

5. Time and funding: Ensure adequate time and funding to include co-researchers with intellectual and developmental disabilities in the research process

6. Complex research tasks. Involve co-researchers with intellectual and developmental disabilities in aspects of research that require higher cognitive processing. For instance, data analysis or writing

7. Level of support needs: Specify the level of support needs of co-researchers with intellectual and developmental disabilities in the research

8. Multiple recruitment strategies: Use multiple recruitment strategies and sources to have more representative inclusion of co-researchers with intellectual and developmental disabilities

9. Reasons for exclusion: Discuss and be transparent about why co-researchers with intellectual and developmental disabilities were not included in certain aspects of the research

10. Inclusive and accessible strategies: Include any inclusive strategies used and how the project was made accessible for co-researchers with intellectual and developmental disabilities

11. Level of control: Ensure co-researchers with intellectual and developmental disabilities feel they are playing an active role and have a level of control over the research

Data analysis

We used a qualitative descriptive method to provide a detailed summary of how resources align with the checklist for assessing inclusive research resources, as outlined by Ghaderi et al. (2023). The focus was on clear and direct descriptions of the resources rather than on interpreting or finding hidden meanings in the language used (Sandelowski, 2000). By focusing on straightforward descriptions and using clear understandable language, we generated a comprehensive summary of how well the resources meet the criteria on our checklist (Sandelowski, 2000).

Data extraction

Next, a data extraction table was used to organize and analyze the data (Dobbins, 2017). The presence of the checklist item was marked using an “X” symbol. Each matrix row represented the different resources while each column represented the specific checklist items.

The second author was involved in data extraction. Each resource was assigned a score out of 11 demonstrating how well it meets the checklist criteria. Additionally, each checklist item received a score out of 11 demonstrating how many resources met that criterion. These scores were further analyzed to provide a comprehensive picture of the quality of the online resources included in the study.

Data extraction: Application of the checklist

The various resources were evaluated against the checklist provided in Table 1. Sections that fit the criteria were marked onto an excel sheet with an “X”. If a section met the criteria for multiple points of the checklist, all relevant checklist items were selected. Videos were watched multiple times with closed captioning and the time stamps were recorded alongside an “X” for the sections that fit the checklist criteria.

(1) Principled Commitment: The resources met this criterion if the authors discussed their commitment to involving co-researchers with intellectual and developmental disabilities in research or expressed the importance of doing this.

(2) Methodological Detail: This criterion was met if the resource gave procedural details of the steps to be taken to conduct an inclusive project involving co-researchers with intellectual and developmental disabilities. For instance, if a detailed description of the processes from the author’s own research was given. This would provide an example for those reading the resource of what other inclusive academic researchers do and how to involve co-researchers and incorporate it into their projects. Ultimately, the reader needed to understand the steps they could take to carry out an inclusive project involving co-researchers and what they should be doing or considering at each step.

(3) Describing Roles: This criterion was met if the resource stated that the roles of co-researchers with intellectual and developmental disabilities needed to be described. It was also met if it provided descriptions or definitions for the roles of co-researchers with intellectual or developmental disabilities (co-researcher, advisor, etc.). Additionally, it was met if a description was given of the specific tasks of co-researchers with intellectual or developmental disabilities in an inclusive project.

(4) Involvement Across Phases: To meet this criterion, the resource either had to explicitly state or describe that co-researchers with intellectual and developmental disabilities needed to be included in all phases, or as many as possible.

(5) Time and Funding: For time and funding, this criterion was met if the resource specifically stated or described strategies to incorporate more time and adequately remunerate co-researchers with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

(6) Complex Research Tasks This criterion was met if a description or example was given of how co-researchers with intellectual or developmental disabilities were involved in complex aspects of research that would require a greater level of analysis and knowledge about research, for example data analysis, co-authorship and dissemination. This criterion was also met if it highlighted the importance of the inclusion of co-researchers with disabilities within these phases.

(7) Level of Support Needs: For level of support needs, this criterion was met if the resource alluded to the challenges co-researchers might face when contributing to research, the profile and diversity of their support needs or if mentioning that some persons have multiple challenges.

(8) Multiple Recruitment Strategies: The requirements for multiple recruitment strategies included demonstrating the need for representation among co-researchers, giving examples of how co-researchers with intellectual or developmental disabilities were recruited in research, or giving advice on the best course of action for recruitment.

(9) Reasons for Exclusion: This criterion meant that resources gave reasons for including or excluding co-researchers with intellectual or developmental disabilities across certain phases. Requiring certain characteristics for contribution as co-researchers was included as well.

(10) Inclusive Strategies: Inclusive strategies included any accommodations or techniques that would facilitate the inclusion of co-researchers with intellectual or developmental disabilities. This criterion was also met if it expressed the importance of inclusive strategies and meeting co-researchers’ accessibility needs.

(11) Level of Control: To meet the criterion for level of control, the resource needed to discuss factors that influence how empowered co-researchers with intellectual or developmental disabilities feel while participating in the research and how much control they feel they have over the process. This includes stating the importance of empowering co-researchers with intellectual or developmental disabilities, strategies to empower co-researcher with intellectual and developmental disabilities on research teams, collaborative decision making so co-researchers with intellectual and developmental disabilities feel they have a say, as well as barriers that might make co-researchers with intellectual and developmental disabilities feel they don’t have control or they have less control than academic researchers without disabilities.

Findings

The format of the online resources included in this review were five PDFs published by organizations, two toolkits published by organizations, two peer-reviewed articles published by academic journals, and two videos published by organizations (See Table 2). The publication dates ranged from 2012 to 2024, with 9 out of 11 published during the last 5 years. One resource did not have a publication date. PDF lengths varied from 1 to 33 pages, the articles ranged up to 74 pages and the videos were 31 and 59 minutes long. Both toolkits had multiple tabs of information on inclusive research with one containing both documents and videos. Overall, the resources provided insights on inclusive research practices and addressed topics such as ethics, accessibility, collaboration and collective decision-making, and strategies for involving co-researchers with intellectual and developmental disabilities in research. To our knowledge, there is currently no self-paced learning course or program available online for new academic researchers wanting training specifically in conducting inclusive research. This gap in learning opportunities includes both general learning on conducting inclusive research and specialized learning for inclusive research with specific populations as co-researchers. For instance, those with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

Table 2.

List of included resources.

Author/Organization	Resource title	Resource type	Description	Link
Analysis & policy observatory	Doing research inclusively: Guidelines for Co-producing research with persons with disability	Document (PDF)	This 30-page document reviews contemporary co-production evidence, incorporating insights from leading Australian disability organizations and researchers. It was informed by a workshop on co-production in disability research held at UNSW Sydney on November 12, 2019	https://apo.org.au/sites/default/files/resource-files/2020-08/apo-nid310904.pdf
Mcdonald (2019)	Participatory research with persons with developmental disabilities	Document (PDF)	This 12-page document includes various resources, including tables and figures from different sources, on topics such as ethics, inclusion, safety, barriers, and communication	https://nisonger.osu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/McDonald_participatory_research_resources_5_7_2019.pdf
Samuel center for social connectedness/Special olympics	Inclusive research	Document (PDF)	This 1-page document defines and gives tips for conducting inclusive research	https://media.specialolympics.org/resources/community-building/youth-and-school/Tips-For-Inclusive-Research.pdf
REACHLab/Temple University	Toolkit for Remote inclusive research	Document (toolkit)	This toolkit with 8 different tabs includes descriptions of strategies that can be used across different stages of a research process when including co-researchers with intellectual and developmental disabilities	https://tamarin-software.com/accessible-toolkit/start-here.htm
University of Southampton	Doing research inclusively, doing research well?	Peer-reviewed article	This 74-page article report brings together persons doing inclusive research to share and develop their learning through focus groups	https://cdn.southampton.ac.uk/assets/imported/transforms/content-block/UsefulDownloads_Download/97706C004C4F4E68A8B54DB90EE0977D/full_report_doing_research.pdf
Inclusion Australia	Working with persons with an intellectualdisability – a guide for researchers	Document (PDF)	This 4-page document includes information about accessibility when working with co-researchers with an intellectual disability	https://www.inclusionaustralia.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Working-with-People-with-an-Intellectual-Disability-Guide-for-Researchers.pdf
AASPIRE (academic autism Spectrum partnership in research and education)	Inclusive research toolkit- participatory research approaches with the autistic community	Video/Document (Toolkit)	This toolkit includes detailed participatory research training materials and collaboration resources in the form of videos, images, and written content. It also links to various related presentations and publications	https://aaspire.org/inclusion-toolkit/participatory-research/
Disability Innovation Institute- UNSW Sydney	Doing research inclusively: Co-production	Document (PDF)	This 33-page document addresses the inclusive research process in depth and provides guidelines to help researchers who use co-production in their research	https://www.disabilityinnovation.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/documents/15661_UNSW_DIIU_CoProductionInAction_FA_Web.pdf
Spencer et al. (2020)	Including intellectual disability in participatory designprocesses: Methodological adaptations and supports	Article	This 9-page article describes series of methods and adaptations carried out over three years, in the context of inclusive research	https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340033556_Including_intellectual_disability_in_participatory_design_processes_Methodological_adaptations_and_supports
CRECS Noon-Hour colloquium	Inclusive research with persons with cognitive disabilities and ethics challenges	Video	This 31-minute video explains the unique challenges associated with ethics applications when including co-researchers with cognitive disabilities in research	https://youtu.be/IQ0PiDWm1rg?si=pmTVGzRgFodEe6WV
CHEO Symposium	The AART of inclusive research	Video	This 59-minute video explains the AART framework for inclusive research	https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rsp8fa_v12s

Checklist evaluation

The findings suggest a range of checklist criteria met among the different authors and organizations, with some meeting most or all of the criteria and others falling short in several areas (See Table 3). In this review scores on the checklist were classified into four categories:

1. Perfect scores are those that achieve 11 out of 11 (first tier),

2. high scores range from 9 to 10 (second tier),

3. moderate scores range from 6 to 8 (third tier),

4. and low scores are those below 5 (last tier).

Table 3.

Summary of checklist items met per resource and resources meeting each checklist item.

Author/Organization	Checklist items
Author/Organization	1.Principled commitment	2.Methodological detail	3.Describe roles	4. Involvement across phases	5.Time and funding	6.Complex research tasks	7.Level of support needs	8.Multiple recruitment strategies	9.Reasons for exclusion	10.Inclusive/ Accessible strategies	11.Level of control	Total # checklist items met
Analysis & policy observatory	X	X	X	X	X			X	X	X	X	9/11
Mcdonald (2019)	X		X	X	X	X		X	X	X	X	9/11
Samuel center for social connectedness/Special olympics	X			X		X				X		4/11
REACHLab/Temple University	X		X	X	X	X				X	X	7/11
University of Southampton	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	11/11
Inclusion Australia	X									X	X	3/11
AASPIRE	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	11/11
Disability Innovation Institute- UNSW Sydney	X	X	X	X	X	X		X	X	X	X	10/11
Spencer et al. (2020)	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	11/11
CRECS Noon-Hour colloquium	X		X	X	X		X		X	X	X	8/11
CHEO Symposium	X		X	X	X		X	X		X	X	8/11
TOTAL # resources meeting checklist item	11/11	5/11	9/11	10/11	9/11	7/11	5/11	7/11	7/11	11/11	10/11

Overall, the average score for the resources is approximately 8 out of 11. The highest checklist score was met by AASPIRE, Spencer et al. (2020) and the University of Southampton who all reached 11 out of 11 checklist items. Not far behind the Disability Innovation Institute - UNSW Sydney, Analysis & Policy Observatory and Mcdonald (2019) achieved high scores, meeting 9-10 out of 11 checklist items. Furthermore, the moderate range which ranged from 6-8 included the CRECS Noon-Hour Colloquium, CHEO Symposium and REACH Lab/ Temple University. Lastly, the resources with the lowest checklist scores were the Samuel Center for Social Connectedness/Special Olympics and Inclusion Australia meeting 3-4 out of the 11 checklist items.

Duration and format

The 11 selected resources varied in both duration and format from short 1-page documents to videos and comprehensive toolkits. The resources with perfect scores were detailed and comprehensive. AASPIRE offers a multi-format toolkit and Spencer et al. (2020) a focused, in-depth article. This suggests that a perfect score is linked to thorough resources (e.g., long length or multiple formats). Similarly, the second tier of high scores (9-10 out of 11) included three resources that were presented in a document format. Each of these resources provided extensive information and ranged from 12 to 33 pages for academic researchers to explore. It’s notable that among the six document resources included in this review, the ones that had the highest scores were also the longest. In contrast, the resources with the lowest scores (3-4 out of 11 items met) were the shortest and under 5 pages in length. This highlights a trend where shorter less detailed resources score lower on the checklist criteria. However, this is not true for the resources that were exclusively videos. They both fell under the moderate range but varied greatly in the duration of the videos. For instance, the 31-minute video reached the same amount of checklist points as the 59-minute-long video. Despite this difference, both videos were considered long and detailed and met 8 out of 11 points demonstrating their value. Overall, this demonstrates the value of several different formats to share information with academic researchers conducting inclusive research with co-researchers with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

Findings across checklist items

In addition to understanding the quality of the resources included in this review, it was crucial to examine which checklist items were consistently met or overlooked. To begin, the two checklist items “principled commitment” and “inclusive/accessible strategies” were present in all the resources. Overall, this indicates that these checklist items are well-known and widely used in inclusive research resources. Additionally, 10 out of 11 resources commonly included the checklist items “involvement across phases” and “level of control”, highlighting their relevance. On the other hand, the importance of “time and funding”, “role descriptions”, and “complex research tasks” were moderately covered, appearing in 7 to 9 out of the 11 resources.

Incomplete coverage of key checklist items

A significant concern is that 2 out of 11 specific checklist items were met only in 5 of the 11 resources. This indicates that “methodological detail” and “level of support needs” are the least frequently addressed in the resources. Interestingly, both of these checklist items relate to specifying enough detail regarding methodological detail and the level of support needs of co-researchers with intellectual and developmental disabilities involved in research. The 5 resources that did mention “methodological details” had high scores on the checklist items and provided a guide on how to conduct an inclusive project from start to finish. Lastly, the checklist item “level of support needs” was only mentioned in the resources that had a perfect score (11 out of 11) and on the checklist and in two videos in the moderate range (6-8 out of 11). This means that none of the three resources in the second tier of high scores (9-10 out of 11) or lowest tier of scores (3-4 out of 11) mentioned “level of support needs”.

Discussion

This rapid review assessed the quality of available resources for new academic researchers on conducting inclusive research and effectively engaging co-researchers with intellectual and developmental disabilities. A limited number of resources were identified. The evaluation based on the checklist created from the criteria proposed by Ghaderi et al. (2023) revealed that while some resources achieved perfect scores (e.g., AASPIRE, Spencer et al. (2020), and the University of Southampton) others varied greatly. The average score on the checklist was 8 out of 11, with some resources scoring as low as 3 out of 11. Overall, higher checklist scores were associated with long and detailed resources, with comprehensive toolkits and longer resources scoring higher on the checklist. Importantly, the review found that all resources consistently met the checklist items “principled commitment” and “inclusive/accessible strategies.” Authors often took a social justice approach when discussing inclusive research (Nind, 2014). This approach supports the social model of disability and the idea that exclusion happens due to poorly designed environments rather than individual impairments (Loewen and Pollard, 2010). This perspective helps explain why the two checklist criteria related to disability justice were frequently met. Additionally, since accessible strategies are fundamental to the integrity of inclusive research (Johnson and Walmsley, 2003; Walmsley et al., 2018), it was expected that most of the resources would discuss this checklist point. In contrast, items like “time and funding,” “role descriptions,” and “complex research tasks” were only moderately covered. The checklist items “methodological detail” and “level of support needs” were the least frequently addressed in the resources.

Strength of the resources

There were several strengths among the 11 resources included in this review. Firstly, the resources from AASPIRE and The Reachlab/Temple University stood out for being detailed toolkits with different learning components. Next, The Samuel Center for Social Connectedness/Special Olympics provided easy-to-follow content with a colourful infographic. In addition, many resources such as the ones from Analysis and Policy Observatory, Macdonald (2019), the Disability Innovation Institute Sydney, Inclusion Australia, AASPIRE, Spencer et al. (2020), and the University of South Hampton had engaging visuals from tables and charts to pictures to help the reader. Moreover, the University of Southampton and the CHEO Symposium both provided clear examples of using inclusive research in the real world. Finally, the perspectives from co-researchers and experienced academic researchers shared in the CRECS Noon Hour Colloquium and CHEO Symposium added valuable insights for the listener. Overall, the resources in this review emphasized the importance of including people with intellectual and developmental disabilities as co-researchers and facilitating this inclusion.

Implications

There are few resources available for learning inclusive research methods and uncertainty about whether academic researchers learn about them from other researchers, formal education, or other sources. Inclusive research methods are also not widely offered in university methods courses (O’Brien et al., 2022). In higher education, educators teaching research methods may not be skilled in inclusive research methods, since teaching positions are assigned for many other factors, like availability and seniority (Wagner et al., 2011). Additionally, regardless of their level of expertise, research method educators need resources to support their teaching. An issue in the access to resources includes unclear copyright concerns (Brent et al., 2012), which may partly explain the difficulties highlighted in this paper when it comes to finding quality relevant resources. The lack of available resources on inclusive research methods limits their implementation. In turn, failing to implement inclusive practices hinders their validity and impact.

Access to quality resources is crucial for new academic researchers conducting inclusive research because it ensures they have the knowledge and skills to meaningfully engage co-researchers with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Without these resources, new academic researchers may struggle to use inclusive methods. This can lead to apprehension and ineffective research engagement of co-researchers with intellectual and developmental disabilities. These gaps may also hinder the growth of disability justice, empowerment, and the right of persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities to not only participate in but also lead research about themselves (“nothing about us without us”). Building on this need, this study extends the previous literature by applying the work of Ghaderi et al. (2023) to evaluate the quality of online resources available in 2024. While Ghaderi et al. (2023) identified the key criteria for evaluating inclusive research resources, this review assessed how well the current resources meet those criteria. This provides new academic researchers valuable insights on the current availability and quality of resources and allows them to make informed decisions about which ones to use to guide their work.

However, the fact that certain areas of the checklist (such as methodological detail) were less well-covered in the existing resources is problematic. There is wide consensus on the value of criteria such as principled commitment (Johnson and Walmsley, 2003; Walmsley et al., 2018), but the lack of methodological details in the resources suggests there is variability in the methodological process in inclusive research projects. Methodological details must be provided by those offering inclusive research resources so that inclusive methods can be more formally conceptualized. Given the value and complexity of inclusive research (Zaagsma et al., 2022), there is a need for comprehensive formal training aimed specifically at academically-trained researchers. This is especially important in educational disciplines that have a history of stigmatizing people with intellectual and developmental disabilities in academic research (e.g., medical and health sciences; Iacono and Carling-Jenkins, 2012; National Council on Disability, 2024). This training should also address the practical challenges associated with implementing inclusive research practices (Garcia-Lee et al., 2024; Hewitt et al., 2023; Riches et al., 2020; Strnadová and Walmsley, 2018; van Den Bogaard et al., 2024).

Need for formal implementation support

This study brings to light the gap between the current available resources and practical implementation. Despite some resources in this review meeting all the checklist criteria, new academic researchers are still left with the challenge of implementing the content into their own research. Therefore, it is crucial to focus on how effectively the content learned from the resources can be practically implemented. Implementation science advocates for learning methods that go further than passive learning from experts (e.g., reading materials) to include an active learning component (Freeman et al., 2014). Even the most comprehensive and high-quality resources in this review were missing an active learning component that would have helped new academic researchers apply what they learned. Some examples of active learning components include online tests and quizzes, interactive online games, readings from hyperlinks and problem-solving assignments with real-world situations (Phillips, 2005). From an educational perspective, research suggests that this type of learning positively impacts learning experience and transitions to real-world experiences (Price et al., 2015; Theobald et al., 2020). Similar benefits of active learning were found in the context of learning research methods in the social sciences (Lewthwaite and Nind, 2016). Consequently, there is a need for a training that offers self-paced learning with implementation support for new academic researchers to build on the currently available resources. This would help in informing best practices in inclusive research and ensuring that inclusive research is conducted with rigor and consistency. Senior academic researchers who are proficient in inclusive research methods should develop and make available this type of training which does not currently exist. Moreover, this would support knowledge mobilization to new academic researchers in the growing field of inclusive research methods.

Limitations

There are certain limitations of this research should be considered when interpreting the findings. First, the literature search for this review was concluded in May 2024 meaning that any new resources published after that time were not included. However, this study reflected the real-time experience of graduate students and new academic researchers searching for inclusive research resources helping to capture the real-world challenge in this context. Next, the authors acknowledge the challenge of identifying all existing resources relating to including co-researchers with intellectual and developmental disabilities. For example, while some book chapters may contain relevant guidelines for new researchers, they were not included in this review based on the definition of educational resources borrowed from Wensing et al. (2013). As noted on Page 3, the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group (EPOC) defines educational resources as including guidelines, audiovisual resources, electronic publications, and educational computer programs (Wensing et al., 2013, as cited in EPOC, 2002). Next, the term learning disabilities is often used in the United Kingdom to describe individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities (Walmsley et al., 2018). With this in mind, there is a possibility that some resources were missed or overlooked because of incorrect titles. Additionally, some resources might have been restricted geographically or institutionally, required member access or not been listed in the databases used. Lastly, some resources for academic researchers may have been available in languages other than English that were not included in this review.

Conclusion

This rapid review offers practical insights to new and senior academic researchers in the field of inclusive research. As of 2024, there were few resources available online for new academic researchers to learn about doing inclusive research and effectively engaging co-researchers with intellectual and developmental disabilities. While some were high-quality based on the checklist created from the criteria proposed by Ghaderi et al. (2023), others fell short in meeting key checklist points. Future studies should explore how academic researchers make resources available to others to identify best practices for resource dissemination. Next, it is important to investigate how inclusive research methods impact research processes and outcomes. Lastly, while this study analyzed the presence of quality criteria in the resources, future research should look at these criteria in greater depth, including how they are discussed. This will help better understand their significance and overall quality. Nevertheless, the existing knowledge base offers insights into the quality of resources available for new academic researchers and highlights the need for comprehensive training with practical implementation components.

Footnotes

Author contributions

Audrey Hodgins: Methodology, Formal Analysis, Writing - Original Draft, Visualization. Melanie Beres: Validation, Investigation, Data curation. Munazza Tahir: Conceptualization, Project administration, Writing - Review & Editing. Virginie Cobigo: Writing - Review & Editing, Supervision.

Declaration of conflicting interest

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest concerning the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Audrey Hodgins

Munazza Tahir

Virginie Cobigo

Data Availability Statement

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study. *

References

Brent

Gibbs

G. R.

Gruszczynska

A. K.

(2012). Obstacles to creating and finding open educational resources: The case of research methods in the social sciences. Journal of Interactive Media in Education: JiME, 2012 (1), 5. https://doi.org/10.5334/2012-05

Chouinard

J. A.

Cousins

J. B.

(2009). A review and synthesis of current research on cross-cultural evaluation. The American Journal of Evaluation, 30(4), 457–494. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214009349865

Cobigo

Potvin

L. A.

Fulford

Chalghoumi

Hanna

Plourde

Taylor

W. D.

(2019). A conversation with research ethics boards about inclusive research with persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities. In Research Involving Participants with Cognitive Disability and Difference. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198824343.003.0016

Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Review Group . (2002). Data collection checklist. https://epoc.cochrane.org/sites/epoc.cochrane.org/files/uploads/datacollectionchecklist.pdf

Deakin University . (2021). HDR Literature Review Plan. https://deakin.libguides.com/c.php?g=929473&p=6716905

Dobbins

(2017). Rapid review guidebook. National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools. https://www.nccmt.ca/uploads/media/media/0001/02/800fe34eaedbad09edf80ad5081b9291acf1c0c2.pdf

Frankena

T. K.

Naaldenberg

Cardol

Linehan

van Schrojenstein Lantman-de Valk

(2015). Active involvement of people with intellectual disabilities in health research – A structured literature review. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 45–46, 271–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2015.08.004

Freeman

Eddy

S. L.

McDonough

Smith

M. K.

Okoroafor

Jordt

Wenderoth

M. P.

(2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences - PNAS, 111(23), 8410–8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111

Ganann

Ciliska

Thomas

(2010). Expediting systematic reviews: Methods and implications of rapid reviews. Implementation Science: IS, 5(1), 56. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-5-56

10.

Garcia‐Lee

Strnadová

Dowse

(2024). Researching belonging in the context of research with people with intellectual disabilities: A systematic review of inclusive approaches. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 37(1), e13178-n/a. https://doi.org/10.1111/jar.13178

11.

Garratt

Johnson

Millear

Picken

Slattery

Walmsley

(2022). Celebrating thirty years of inclusive research. Social Sciences (Basel), 11(9), 385. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci11090385

12.

Ghaderi

Milley

Lysaght

Cobigo

(2023). Including people with intellectual and other cognitive disabilities in research and evaluation teams: A scoping review of the empirical knowledge base. Journal of Intellectual Disabilities, 17446295231189912–17446295231189912. https://doi.org/10.1177/17446295231189912

13.

Hamel

Michaud

Thuku

Skidmore

Stevens

Nussbaumer-Streit

Garritty

(2021). Defining rapid reviews: A systematic scoping review and thematic analysis of definitions and defining characteristics of rapid reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 129, 74–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.09.041

14.

Hewitt

Langdon

P. E.

Tapp

Larkin

(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

15.

Iancono

Carling- Jenkin

(2012). The human rights context for ethical requirements for involving people with intellectual disability in medical research: Human rights and people with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 56, 1122–1132. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2788.2012.01617.x

16.

Johnson

Walmsley

(2003). Inclusive research with people with learning disabilities: Past, present and futures. Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

17.

Khangura

Konnyu

Cushman

Grimshaw

Moher

(2012). Evidence summaries: The evolution of a rapid review approach. Systematic Reviews, 1(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-1-10

18.

Lewthwaite

Nind

(2016). Teaching research methods in the social sciences: Expert perspectives on pedagogy and practice. British Journal of Educational Studies, 64(4), 413–430. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071005.2016.1197882

19.

Loewen

Pollard

(2010). The social justice perspective. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 23(1), 5–18. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ888640.pdf

20.

Mcdonald

(2019) Participatory research with people with developmental disabilities. The Ohio State University Nisconger Center.

21.

National Council on Disability . (2024). The implicit and explicit exclusion of people with disabilities in clinical trials. https://www.ncd.gov/report/the-implicit-and-explicit-exclusion-of-people-with-disabilities-in-clinical-trials/

22.

Nind

(2014). Inclusive research and inclusive education: Why connecting them makes sense for teachers’ and learners’ democratic development of education. Cambridge Journal of Education, 44(4), 525–540. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2014.936825

23.

Nind

Vinha

(2014). Doing research inclusively: Bridges to multiple possibilities in inclusive research. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42(2), 102–109. https://doi.org/10.1111/bld.12013

24.

Nind

(2016). Towards a second generation of inclusive research. In Buchner

Koenig

Schuppener

(Eds.), Inklusive Forschung. Gemeinsam mit Menschen mit Lernschwierigkeiten forschen. (pp. 186-198). Bad Heilbrunn. https://doi.org/10.25656/01:12766

25.

O’Brien

McConkey

García-Iriarte

(2014). Co-researching with people who have intellectual disabilities: Insights from a national survey. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 27(1), 65–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/jar.12074

26.

O’Brien

Garcia Iriarte

Mc Conkey

Butler

O’Brien

(2022). Inclusive research and intellectual disabilities: Moving forward on a road less well-travelled. Social Sciences (Basel), 11(10), 483. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci11100483

27.

Phillips

J. M.

(2005). Strategies for active learning in online continuing education. The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 36(2), 77–83. https://doi.org/10.3928/0022-0124-20050301-08

28.

Price

D. W.

Wagner

D. P.

Krane

N. K.

Rougas

S. C.

Lowitt

N. R.

Offodile

R. S.

Easdown

L. J.

Andrews

M. A. W.

Kodner

C. M.

Lypson

Barnes

B. E.

(2015). What are the implications of implementation science for medical education? Medical Education Online, 20(1), 27003. https://doi.org/10.3402/meo.v20.27003

29.

Riches

T. N.

O’Brien

P. M.

The CDS Inclusive Research Network (2020). Can we publish inclusive research inclusively? Researchers with intellectual disabilities interview authors of inclusive studies. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48(4), 272–280. https://doi.org/10.1111/bld.12324

30.

Sandelowski

(2000). Whatever happened to qualitative description? Research in Nursing & Health, 23(4), 334–340. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-240X(200008)23:4<334::AID-NUR9>3.0.CO;2-G

31.

Spencer

Vega Códove

Exss Cid

Jarpa Azagra

Álvarez-Aguado

(2020, June). Including intellectual disability in participitory design processes: Methodological adaptations and supports. In Proceedings of the 16th Participatory Design Conference 2020-Participation(s) Otherwise-Volume 1 (pp.55-63).

32.

St John

Mihaila

Dorrance

DaWalt

L. S.

Ausderau

K. K.

(2018). Reflections from co-researchers with intellectual disability: Benefits to inclusion in a research study team. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 56(4), 251–262. https://doi.org/10.1352/1934-9556-56.5.251

33.

Strnadová

Walmsley

(2018). Peer‐reviewed articles on inclusive research: Do co‐researchers with intellectual disabilities have a voice? Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 31(1), 132–141. https://doi.org/10.1111/jar.12378

34.

Theobald

E. J.

Hill

M. J.

Tran

Agrawal

Arroyo

E. N.

Behling

Chambwe

Cintrón

D. L.

Cooper

J. D.

Dunster

Grummer

J. A.

Hennessey

Hsiao

Iranon

Jones

Jordt

Keller

Lacey

M. E.

Littlefield

C. E.

Freeman

(2020). Active learning narrows achievement gaps for underrepresented students in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and math. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences - PNAS, 117(12), 6476–6483. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1916903117

35.

van den Bogaard

Frielink

Schippers

Embregts

(2024). Examining people’s experiences of working in collaborative relationships while conducting inclusive research involving persons with intellectual disabilities. Social Sciences (Basel), 13(2), 110. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci13020110

36.

Vlot‐van Anrooij

Frankena

T. K.

Cruijsen

Jansen

Naaldenberg

Bevelander

K. E.

(2022). Shared decision making in inclusive research: Reflections from an inclusive research team. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 50(4), 554–563. https://doi.org/10.1111/bld.12450

37.

Wagner

Garner

Kawulich

(2011). The state of the art of teaching research methods in the social sciences: Towards a pedagogical culture. Studies in Higher Education (Dorchester-on-Thames), 36(1), 75–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070903452594

38.

Walmsley

(2001). Normalisation, emancipatory research and inclusive research in learning disability. Disability & Society, 16(2), 187–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687590120035807

39.

Walmsley

Strnadová

Johnson

(2018). The added value of inclusive research. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 31(5), 751–759. https://doi.org/10.1111/jar.12431

40.

Walsh

Stead

Sawyer

S. M.

O’Shea

Watson

J. M.

Anderson

K. L. M.

(2024). In pursuit of ethical and inclusive research: What ethics committees and disability researchers can learn from each other. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 23. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069241237549

41.

Wensing

Fluit

Grol

Davis

Eccles

(2013). Educational strategies. In Improving Patient Care (pp. 197–209). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118525975.ch12

42.

Williams

Simons

(2005). More researching together: The role of nondisabled researchers in working with People First members. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33(1), 6–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-3156.2004.00299.x

43.

Zaagsma

Koning

van Andel

Volkers

Schippers

van Hove

(2022). A closer look at the quest for an inclusive research project: ‘I had no experience with scientific research, and then the ball of cooperation started rolling’. Social Sciences (Basel), 11(5), 186. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci11050186