Navigating Risks and Professional Roles: Research with Lesbian,Gay,Bisexual,Trans,and Queer Young People with Intellectual Disabilities

Abstract

We examine ethical issues that emerged during a community-based participatory research (CBPR) study in Toronto, Canada, exploring sexual health attitudes and practices among lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, queer, and questioning (LGBTQ) young people (ages 17–26) labeled with intellectual disabilities. These ethical concerns included: (1) managing the risk of coercion, (2) consent to participate in the study, (3) issues of confidentiality and disclosure, (4) balancing beneficence with self-determination, and (5) role conflict for researcher-practitioners who participate in CBPR projects. Incorporating critical disability perspectives and a heightened awareness of professional role conflict into CBPR practices has the potential to foster development of more inclusive and accessible sexual health initiatives and research environments.

Keywords

community-based participatory research research ethics intellectual disabilities LGBTQ youth informed consent accessible inclusive research vulnerable populations

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aman

M. G.

& Handen

(2006). Reactions to “Ethical challenges and complexities of including people with intellectual disability as participants in research.” Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 31(3), 180–182.

American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text rev.). Washington, DC: Author.

Anderson

E. E.

(2010). The role of community-based organizations in the recruitment of human subjects: Ethical considerations. American Journal of Bioethics, 10(3), 20–21.

Andre-Barron

Strydom

, & Hassiotis

(2008). What to tell and how to tell: A qualitative study of information sharing in research for adults with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Medical Ethics, 34(6), 501–506.

Arscott

Dagnan

, & Kroese

B. S.

(1998). Consent to psychological research by people with an intellectual disability. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 11(1), 77–83.

Banister

& Daly

(2006). Walking a fine line: Negotiating dual roles in a study with adolescent girls. In Leadbeater

Banister

Benoit

Jansson

Marshall

, & Riecken

(Eds.), Ethical issues in community-based research with children and youth (pp. 157–172). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Barnes

(1992). Qualitative research: Valuable or irrelevant? Disability, Handicap and Society, 7(2), 115–124.

Bigby

& Frawley

(2010). Reflections on doing inclusive research in the “Making Life Good in the Community” study. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 35(2), 53–61.

Booth

(1998). Doing research with lonely people. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26(4), 132–134.

10.

Brigham

(1998). Representing the lives of women with learning difficulties: Ethical dilemmas in the research process. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26(4), 146–150.

11.

Cameron

& Murphy

(2007). Obtaining consent to participate in research: The issues involved in including people with a range of learning and communication disabilities. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35(2), 113–120.

12.

Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (CIHR, NSERC, & SSHRC). (2010). Tri-council policy statement: Ethical conduct for research involving humans. Retrieved from http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/pdf/eng/tcps2/TCPS_2_FINAL_web.pdf.

13.

Cusick

& Lannin

(2008). On becoming a practitioner-researcher in remote northern Australia: Personal commitment and resources compensate for structural deterrents to research. Disability and Rehabilitation, 30(26), 1984–1998.

14.

Czoli

Da Silva

Shaul

Zlotnik R.

D'Agincourt-Canning

Simpson

Boydell

Rashkovan

, & Vanin

(2011). Accountability and pediatric physician-researchers: Are theoretical models compatible with Canadian lived experience? Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, 6, 15.

15.

Dalton

A. J.

& McVilly

K. R.

(2004). Ethics guidelines for international, multicenter research involving people with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 1(2), 57–70.

16.

Davidson

(2007). Seeking refuge under the umbrella: Inclusion, exclusion, and organizing within the category transgender. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 4(4), 60–80.

17.

Dolmage

(2005). Disability studies pedagogy, usability and universal design. Disability Studies Quarterly, 25(4). Retrieved from http://dsq-sds.org/article/view/627/804.

18.

Dye

Hare

D. J.

, & Hendy

(2007). Capacity of people with intellectual disabilities to consent to take part in a research study. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 20(2), 168–174.

19.

Dye

Hendy

Hare

D. J.

, & Burton

(2004). Capacity to consent to participate in research: A recontextualization. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32(3), 144–150.

20.

Elze

(2005). Research with sexual minority youths: Where do we go from here? Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services, 18(2), 73–99.

21.

Field

M. J.

& Behrman

R. E.

(Eds.). (2004). The ethical conduct of clinical research involving children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

22.

Flicker

& Guta

(2008). Ethical approaches to adolescent participation in sexual health research. Journal of Adolescent Health, 42(1), 3–10.

23.

Forrester-Jones

Carpenter

Coolen-Schrijner

Cambridge

Tate

. (2006). The social networks of people with intellectual disability living in the community 12 years after resettlement from long-stay hospitals. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 19(4), 285–295.

24.

Fraser

D. M.

(1997). Ethical dilemmas and practical problems for the practitioner researcher. Educational Action Research, 5(1), 161–171.

25.

Garland

A. F.

McCabe

K. M.

, & Yeh

(2008). Ethical challenges in practice-based mental health services research: Examples from research with children and families. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 15(2), 118–124.

26.

Ham

Jones

Mansell

Northway

Price

, & Walker

(2004). “I'm a researcher!” Working together to gain approval for a participatory research study. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 8(4), 397–407.

27.

Iacono

(2006a). Ethical challenges and complexities of including people with intellectual disability as participants in research. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 31(3), 173–179.

28.

Iacono

(2006b). Further comments on the researched, researchers and ethics committees: A response. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 31(3), 189–191.

29.

James

& Platzer

(1999). Ethical considerations in qualitative research with vulnerable groups: Exploring lesbians' and gay men's experiences of health care: A personal perspective. Nursing Ethics, 6(1), 73–81.

30.

Johnson

(2009). No longer researching about us without us: A researcher's reflection on rights and inclusive research in Ireland. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37(4), 250–256.

31.

Kiernan

(1999). Participation in research by people with learning disability: Origins and issues. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27(2), 43–47.

32.

Knox

Mok

, & Parmenter

(2000). Working with the experts: Collaborative research with people with an intellectual disability. Disability and Society, 15(1), 49–61.

33.

Lai

Elliott

, & Ouellette-Kuntz

(2006). Attitudes of research ethics committee members toward individuals with intellectual disabilities: The need for more research. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 3(2), 114–118.

34.

Llewellyn

& Northway

(2008). The views and experiences of people with intellectual disabilities concerning advocacy: A focus group study. Journal of Intellectual Disabilities, 12(3), 213–228.

35.

Mactavish

J. B.

Mahon

M. J.

, & Lutfiyya

Z. M.

(2000). “I can speak for myself “: Involving individuals with intellectual disabilities as research participants. Mental Retardation, 38(3), 216–227.

36.

Martin

J. I.

& Meezan

(2003). Applying ethical standards to research and evaluations involving lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender populations. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services, 15(1/2), 181–201.

37.

McCarthy

(1998). Interviewing people with learning disabilities about sensitive topics: A discussion of ethical issues. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26(4), 140–145.

38.

McClelland

Flicker

Nepveux

Nixon

Wilson

. (2012). Seeking safer sexual spaces: Queer and trans young people labeled with intellectual disabilities and the paradoxical risks of restriction. Journal of Homosexuality, 59(6), 808–819.

39.

McClimens

(2004). What difference does it make who is speaking? Audience, ownership and authority in learning disability research. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 8(1), 71–88.

40.

McDonald

K. E.

Kidney

C. A.

Nelms

S. L.

Parker

M. R.

, & Keys

C. B.

(2009). Including adults with intellectual disabilities in research: Scientists' perceptions of risks and protections. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 6(4), 244–252.

41.

Melendez

R. M.

Bonem

L. A.

, & Sember

(2006). On bodies and research: Transgender issues in health and HIV research articles. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 3(4), 21–38.

42.

Miller

R. L.

Forte

Wilson

B. D.

, & Greene

G. J.

(2006). Protecting sexual minority youth from research risks: Conflicting perspectives. American Journal of Community Psychology, 37(3/4), 341–348.

43.

Minkes

Townsley

Weston

, & Williams

(1995). Having a voice: Involving people with learning difficulties in research. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23(3), 94–97.

44.

Minkler

Fadem

Perry

Blum

Moore

, & Rogers

(2002). Ethical dilemmas in participatory action research: A case study from the disability community. Health Education and Behavior, 29(1), 14–29.

45.

Mustanski

(2011). Ethical and regulatory issues with conducting sexuality research with LGBTQ adolescents: A call to action for a scientifically informed approach. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40(4), 673–686.

46.

Newell

(1997). Powerful practices: An Australian case study of contested notions of ethical disability research. Disability and Society, 12(5), 803–810.

47.

Northway

(1998). Engaging in participatory research: Some personal reflections. Journal of Intellectual Disabilities, 2(3), 144–149.

48.

Northway

(2000). Ending participatory research? Journal of Intellectual Disabilities, 4(1), 27–36.

49.

Oliver

(1992). Changing the social relations of research production? Disability, Handicap and Society, 7(2), 101–114.

50.

Oliver

& Barnes

(1997). All we are saying is give disabled researchers a chance. Disability and Society, 12(5), 811–813.

51.

Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers (OCSWSSW). (2008). Code of ethics and standards of practice handbook (2nd Ed.). Toronto: OCSWSSW.

52.

Ramcharan

(2006). Ethical challenges and complexities of including vulnerable people in research: Some pre-theoretical considerations. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 31(3), 183–185.

53.

Rolph

(1998). Ethical dilemmas in historical research with people with learning difficulties. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26(4), 135–139.

54.

Rothman

D. J.

(1982). Were Tuskegee and Willowbrook “studies in nature”? Hastings Center Report, 12(2), 5–7.

55.

Sample

P. L.

(1996). Beginnings: Participatory action research and adults with developmental disabilities. Disability and Society, 11(3), 317–332.

56.

Simon

& Mosavel

(2010). Community members as recruiters of human subjects: Ethical considerations. American Journal of Bioethics, 10(3), 3–11.

57.

Stalker

(1998). Some ethical and methodological issues in research with people with learning difficulties. Disability and Society, 13(1), 5–19.

58.

Stevenson

(2010). Flexible and responsive research: Developing rights-based emancipatory disability research methodology in collaboration with young adults with Down Syndrome. Australian Social Work, 63(1), 35–50.

59.

Swain

Heyman

, & Gillman

(1998). Public research, private concerns: Ethical issues in the use of open-ended interviews with people who have learning difficulties. Disability and Society, 13(1), 21–36.

60.

Tilley

& Woodthorpe

(2011). Is it the end of anonymity as we know it? A critical examination of the ethical principal of anonymity in the context of the 21st century demands on the qualitative researcher. Qualitative Research, 11(2), 197–212.

61.

Tooley

& Marshall

(2008). What works with LGBT youth? Evaluating drop-in groups for diverse lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, trans, two-spirited, intersex, queer and questioning youth in North Toronto. Toronto: Griffin Centre.

62.

Wallwork

(2008). Ethical analysis of research partnerships with communities. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 18(1), 57–85.

63.

Walmsley

(2001). Normalisation, emancipatory research and inclusive research in learning disability. Disability and Society, 16(2), 187–205.

64.

Walsh

C. A.

Hewson

Shier

, & Morales

(2008). Unraveling ethics: Reflections from a community-based participatory research project with youth. Qualitative Report, 13(3), 379–393.

65.

Wiles

Charles

Crow

, & Heath

(2006). Researching researchers: Lessons for research ethics. Qualitative Research, 6(3), 283–299.

66.

Williams

A. S.

& Moore

S. M.

(2011). Universal design of research: Inclusion of persons with disabilities in mainstream biomedical studies. Science Translational Medicine, 3(82), 1–5.

67.

Yan

E. G.

& Munir

K. M.

(2004). Regulatory and ethical principles in research involving children and individuals with developmental disabilities. Ethics and Behavior, 14(1), 31–49.

68.

Zarb

(1992). On the road to Damascus: First steps towards changing the relations of disability research production. Disability, Handicap and Society, 7(2), 125–138.