Suchergebnisse

Sinds 2016 ben ik als onderzoeker betrokken bij het onderzoeksnetwerk 'Samen werken, samen leren', samen met Henriëtte Sandvoort (LFB), Alice Schippers (DSiN), Geert Van Hove (UGent, VU Amsterdam) en Petri Embregts, Elsbeth Taminiau en Kim van den Bogaard van Tranzo, Universiteit Tilburg. Vanuit dit project ontwikkelen Henriëtte Sandvoort (LFB) en ikzelf training, coaching en intervisie – de zogenaamde Cabriotraining – voor de verschillende participatieve onderzoeksprojecten binnen het ZonMw-programma Gewoon Bijzonder, Nationaal Programma Gehandicapten (NPG).

The authors discuss pivotal themes in the use of imagery (visual and verbal) as a method to engage in dialogue with young people with intellectual disability (ID). In their discussion they reflect on co-occurring changes in Dutch society, the nature of caregiving, and the increasing appeals for empowerment for and by people with ID. A critical dialogue is used to analyse experiences with imagery from their previous research, and the possibilities imagery harbours to improve dialogues on quality of life with young people with ID. Through analysis of the critical dialogue, five themes were identified: leitmotiv, ambiguity, choice, revelation, and distance. To conclude, the authors discuss why family members and professional support workers should consider using imagery as a productive methodology.

Access to the target group
In participatory action research (PAR) the research team should include researchers and experts by experience (and their allies affected by the issue). PAR emphasizes collective inquiry and contribution to changes in policy and practice.
In their opening essay Sergeant and Van de Merbel state that it is not enough to promote PAR as a vital way in bringing positive change in policy and practice. In order to conduct PAR in an ethical and just way, one needs to create room, space and time for PAR. PAR is more than a method; it needs time, good overthinking, collaborative reflection, creative research methods, coaching and training for all research group members, and – as Xavier Moonen states in his reply – sometimes also protection of vulnerable people. Moonen argues that this vulnerability should be taken into account and experts by experience should be protected from tokenism and research that does not meet their interests. This means, according to Moonen, that ethical considerations must be made. Gatekeepers should keep in mind that participation is a basic right and that pro's and con's should be considered in that light.
In reaction to Moonen, Sergeant presents the 'Working together, learning together' and the results that come from this research project. She pleads for respecting intergroup-diversity within target groups and for looking beyond procedural ethical issues towards crossing the boundaries between dis- and ability.