Inclusive peer review: reflections on an adapted citizens’ jury with people with learning disabilities
Inclusive peer review: reflections on an adapted citizens’ jury with people with learning disabilities
Background: Inclusive research is widely accepted as an essential part of the process to democratise knowledge creation and dissemination. However, while peer review is an important part of academic publishing, the potential to include people with learning disabilities in this element of the research process has not previously been explored using a deliberative approach. Methods: Accessibility adaptations were made to the citizens' jury approach enabling people with learning disabilities to participate. Sixteen adults with mild to moderate learning disabilities were recruited to participate in the adapted citizens' jury. Jury members took part in capacity-building workshops to develop their knowledge of research and research processes. Six expert witnesses presented evidence to the citizens' jury and were questioned on aspects of inclusive research, representation, peer review and academic publishing processes. Facilitators supported citizens' jury members to reflect on the evidence presented and to develop recommendations for inclusive peer review. Findings: The citizens' jury was an effective inclusive research approach in this case. Jurors made recommendations related to the question of inclusive peer review: inclusive reviews should be done by groups rather than individuals; the research under review must be in accessible formats and on relevant topics; reviewers need sufficient time to conduct reviews; and diverse groups of people with learning disabilities should be involved. Conclusions: People with learning disabilities appreciate the importance of peer review but do not necessarily want to participate in it. This jury suggested creative approaches to disseminating, reviewing and engaging with research, including building more opportunities for dialogue between researchers and self-advocates. The adapted citizens' jury was a novel and effective method of supporting deliberation on this topic but other approaches to including the views and experiences of those with more severe learning disabilities should be explored.
citizens' jury, deliberative democracy, inclusive research, intellectual disabilities, learning disabilities, peer review
666-675
Henderson, Angela
8a094c47-1592-4fc8-9809-5fceefa1eac2
Cassidy, John
c7271f9f-daa5-4403-974b-9db4880dc429
Croydon, Abigail Elizabeth
afcce3d6-59f1-4563-a399-45811847a513
Nind, Melanie
b1e294c7-0014-483e-9320-e2a0346dffef
10 May 2024
Henderson, Angela
8a094c47-1592-4fc8-9809-5fceefa1eac2
Cassidy, John
c7271f9f-daa5-4403-974b-9db4880dc429
Croydon, Abigail Elizabeth
afcce3d6-59f1-4563-a399-45811847a513
Nind, Melanie
b1e294c7-0014-483e-9320-e2a0346dffef
Henderson, Angela, Cassidy, John, Croydon, Abigail Elizabeth and Nind, Melanie
(2024)
Inclusive peer review: reflections on an adapted citizens’ jury with people with learning disabilities.
British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 52 (4), .
(doi:10.1111/bld.12603).
Abstract
Background: Inclusive research is widely accepted as an essential part of the process to democratise knowledge creation and dissemination. However, while peer review is an important part of academic publishing, the potential to include people with learning disabilities in this element of the research process has not previously been explored using a deliberative approach. Methods: Accessibility adaptations were made to the citizens' jury approach enabling people with learning disabilities to participate. Sixteen adults with mild to moderate learning disabilities were recruited to participate in the adapted citizens' jury. Jury members took part in capacity-building workshops to develop their knowledge of research and research processes. Six expert witnesses presented evidence to the citizens' jury and were questioned on aspects of inclusive research, representation, peer review and academic publishing processes. Facilitators supported citizens' jury members to reflect on the evidence presented and to develop recommendations for inclusive peer review. Findings: The citizens' jury was an effective inclusive research approach in this case. Jurors made recommendations related to the question of inclusive peer review: inclusive reviews should be done by groups rather than individuals; the research under review must be in accessible formats and on relevant topics; reviewers need sufficient time to conduct reviews; and diverse groups of people with learning disabilities should be involved. Conclusions: People with learning disabilities appreciate the importance of peer review but do not necessarily want to participate in it. This jury suggested creative approaches to disseminating, reviewing and engaging with research, including building more opportunities for dialogue between researchers and self-advocates. The adapted citizens' jury was a novel and effective method of supporting deliberation on this topic but other approaches to including the views and experiences of those with more severe learning disabilities should be explored.
Text
Inclusive_peer_review_manuscript_final_accepted_version
- Accepted Manuscript
Text
Brit J Learn Disabil - 2024 - Henderson - Inclusive peer review Reflections on an adapted citizens jury with people with
- Version of Record
More information
Accepted/In Press date: 30 April 2024
Published date: 10 May 2024
Additional Information:
Publisher Copyright:
© 2024 The Authors. British Journal of Learning Disabilities published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Keywords:
citizens' jury, deliberative democracy, inclusive research, intellectual disabilities, learning disabilities, peer review
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 490050
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/490050
ISSN: 1354-4187
PURE UUID: 82a4cb23-f95e-4623-b4bb-516e33459624
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 14 May 2024 16:33
Last modified: 12 Nov 2024 02:41
Export record
Altmetrics
Contributors
Author:
Angela Henderson
Author:
John Cassidy
Author:
Abigail Elizabeth Croydon
Download statistics
Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.
View more statistics