Suchergebnisse

People labeled/with intellectual disabilities are rarely given the opportunity to "speak" about their sexual and romantic experiences on their own behalf. Persisting stereotypes and (over)protectionism sometimes serve as social mechanisms that silence disabled people in knowledge creation. Although further protections need to be implemented, people labeled/with intellectual disabilities must have an opportunity to share their perspectives and experiences with love and intimacy. This research note discusses some of the "ethically important moments" I have encountered as a researcher looking at the romantic and sexual lives of adults labeled/with intellectual disabilities, as well as how my embodied experience in the field led me to reflect on my own positionality as a researcher and sexual being.

AbstractBackgroundA limited number of studies have explored religion's role in the intimate lives of adults with intellectual disabilities. This paper illustrates how religion, both of disabled people and those around them (e.g., family members, support workers), can shape the attitudes and experiences of disabled people toward sexuality.MethodThis paper draws on in‐depth interviews with adults with intellectual disabilities and support workers from two exploratory projects in Canada.ResultsParticipants with intellectual disabilities talked about how religion provided a network that served to counter their social isolation and a pool of potential intimate partners, as well as some guidance for maintaining relationships. Support workers discussed the influence of organisational values in their practices related to sexuality.ConclusionsReligion shapes disabled sexualities in various ways, sometimes supporting or constraining sexual expression. This paper invites disability scholars to consider religion when researching the intimate lives of disabled people.

AbstractThis paper provides a review of some of the literature addressing the juncture of disabilities and sexualities and invites sociologists to build on this work and take part in this important intersectional field. First, I discuss the central relevance of an intersectional lens for making sense of the unique experiences of queer people with disabilities who are located at the crossroads of various stratified systems. Then, I discuss some of the many unique challenges that queer disabled people face when exploring their sexuality, establishing relationships, and remaining sexual. The invisibility, marginalization, and discrimination of queer people with disabilities in both queer and disability communities are the focus on the third section. The fourth section speaks to current theoretical dialogues between disability studies and queer theory that have illuminated new pathways for theorizing the intersection of disabilities and sexualities, "cripping" sociological theories, and reimagining disability within sociology. As I demonstrate, this literature is growing; however, myriad exciting opportunities for empirical and theoretical sociological exploration remain and I will conclude with a discussion of possible directions for future research.

This special issue of the Canadian Journal of Disability Studies brings together 19 articles by scholars and activists across broad academic disciplines and activist communities— from disability studies to inclusive education, early childhood education, decolonial studies, feminist anti-violence organizing, community health and more—as well as geopolitical locations.

The papers in this special issue build on an exciting, and fast growing, body of scholarship located at the intersection of critical disability studies and critical animal studies, shedding light on disablism and speciesism1 as interconnecting oppressions, how animality and disability are mutually constitutive, as well as the tensions and coalitions shared by these two related fields (see, for example, Jenkins, Montford & Taylor, 2020; Nocella II, George & Schatz, 2017; Taylor, 2013, 2017).

We critically discuss how practices of ethical governance through university research ethics committees can contribute to the silencing of people labeled with intellectual disabilities through the reproduction of discourses of vulnerability and protectionism. In addition, disabling assumptions of (in)ability and reductive bio-medical understandings of labeled people as a homogeneous group can create concern that such research is "too risky," and perhaps not valuable enough to outweigh potential risks. Combined, these practices deem people "too vulnerable" or "too naïve," and thus, unable to make decisions for themselves about participating in research without putting themselves and the researcher(s) at risk. In this article, we draw on insights gained from our experiences undergoing ethics review for projects focused on the personal and intimate lives of people with intellectual disabilities. We proffer that such ethical governance, though well-intentioned (i.e., to protect participants and researchers), limits not only possibilities for research that would otherwise prioritize the perspectives and agency of people with intellectual disabilities but also how researchers are "allowed" to engage with them in research.

The use of digital technologies in qualitative research has been found to increase access and participation by minimizing geographical, scheduling, and financial barriers. However, discussions among the qualitative research community about the challenges of conducting research online and, specifically, what steps can be taken to mitigate "imposter participants" remain limited. Anchored in a critical disability studies perspective, in this field note paper, we discuss lessons learned in conducting online qualitative research and preserving data trustworthiness.