Research in Learning Disability - Essay Example

«Research in Learning Disability» Introduction A continuing debate surfaced on the pages of Dorothy Atkinson’s study of learning disability wherein she used participatory research to document the life stories of her respondents. Basically, the research demonstrates the ‘compatibility’ of social work practice and qualitative research. In a vivid way, Atkinson gave an advice that social work practice should not mistake the objectives or the functions of research with those of the endeavour of social work researchers, although the procedures that they employ might be an excellent fit. Yet, in an effort to circumvent ethical immodesty that harms the research and the research subject, quite a few have evidently heeded the recommended stance thus far. Atkinson emphasised that social work researchers engage in a human relationship or build rapport that can be constructive or motivating to the research subject. Failure to recognise this mechanism does not force it to disappear. It only fences off an idea of what may really occur in the relationship between participant and researcher and hence disqualifies reflection and the likelihood of discerning the risks and gains that may be a consequence of this relationship or rapport, especially for research subjects (Humphries 2008). Dealing with this prospect can improve the gains and lessen the risks (Denscombe 2007). The National Association of Social Workers (NASW) Code of Ethics obliges every social worker to “critically examine and keep current with emerging knowledge relevant to social work and fully use evaluation and research evidence in their professional practice” (NASW 2000: 5.02 [c]). This essay will provide a thorough analysis of Atkinson’s research and arguments by evaluating its methodology, ethical stance, strength of argument, and issues in practice. Further, this essay will discuss whether qualitative methods, such as participatory research, provide respondents with any gains beyond the planned practice and academic application of such research. As discerned from the article, this essay argues that participatory methods have political and personal repercussions, both beneficial and detrimental, for research subjects. Social work researchers should keep an eye on these research processes and disseminate understanding about them. An Analysis of Participatory Research in Learning Disability Atkinson’s research, which discusses participation in qualitative study, puts emphasis on the difficulty of finding and persuading research subjects, encouraging them to open up with researchers, and discovering how to deal with research subjects considerately so as not to offend, insult, or harm them. The main discussion of human relationship in Atkinson’s study revolves around the argument that participatory method is an excellent fit due to the clinical social work expertise that Atkinson exercise in her research, on top of a caution not to confuse social work practice with research. Interests in combining therapeutic research and practices have long perplexed both researchers and professionals (Corby 2006). Atkinson stresses that informed consent practices in participatory research should comprise an assertion that the endeavour is for research purposes (Turner 2005). The recognition of any accompanying gains and possible harms that may ensue should be defined with the condition that the main purpose is research (Turner 2005). With the emergence of the researcher-professional movement, more therapy was carried out in a way that was projected to be both research and therapeutic focused as the effectiveness and value of different therapies were investigated (Roberts & Yeager 2006). Atkinson articulated concerns about this with reference to single-subject scheme wherein the subject of informed consent regarding the A-B-A model may prejudice the findings of the research and where contradictions among methodologies, ethical obligations, research objectives, and therapeutic goals may take place (Roberts & Yeager 2006). Atkinson explained the disparities between qualitative research and clinical social work practice in terms of relationship, objectives, criteria for success, framework, and education and training. A small but emerging research has embarked on exploring the relationship between research subjects and researchers, with a need for enhanced reflexivity about the effect of the investigation on research subjects (Orme & Shemmings 2010). That this concern arose from Atkinson’s research is not unexpected. Atkinson’s study invites closeness and familiarity. Moreover, it provides an intricate and common (if not largely generalisable) knowledge of individuals and learning disability. Ethical problems may hence be more evident in participatory research due to the more intimate feature of the rapport between the research participants and the researcher. These involve the impact of the research procedure on the respondents, the effect of the research findings on these respondents and others who are equally involved, and the presence of power in the rapport itself (Bryman, Bell & Teevan 2009). These possible problems assume importance in Atkinson’s study of learning disability. In disciplines that have tied specialised status to the quest for evidence-based research rooted mostly in quantitative methods, Atkinson’s argument may not be as strong. Several impacts of the research procedure associated with participatory methods have been documented by the study. Atkinson indicated that helpful cognitive implications take place as an outcome of employing a life-story research due to advantageous outcomes of corroboration or justification. She recognised the detrimental impacts such as reliving trauma and anxiety. Others substantiate these outcomes for other qualitative procedures such as rigorous interviewing. For instance, Pennebaker (2000) has discovered that the mechanism of completely disclosing a story of bereavement has beneficial consequences for the immune system of the research subject. Moreover, literature on best practices concerning psychological functioning after distressing episodes names critical aspects for healthy functioning, which involve a chance to share the entire tale to another person who listens with absolute positive consideration—the point of view perfectly recognised by any qualitative researcher (Nash, Munford & O’Donoghue 2005). Several of the impacts of the research method probably emanate from the social setting of the sample population. Punch (1986) named the populations commonly investigated by participant observation and ethnography ‘nuts and sluts,’ indicating the inclination of social scientists who focus on the ‘sociology of deviance’ to concentrate on experiences that deviate from normal and hence ‘disreputable’ and possibly stigmatising (p. 92). This predisposition to study individuals who are stigmatised and marginalised may lead to various impacts than the study of individual who are used to having superior societal influence and power (Grinnell & Unrau 2005). Although stigmatised individuals do not recognise the stigma, they are often sensitive to how others perceive them in this manner, which can create unrestrained challenges to the main society complicated. While a great deal of the discourse beyond the social work setting has concentrated on the therapeutic ability of qualitative method (Anastas 1999), Atkinson’s study contributes to the interdisciplinary discussions about qualitative methods in general and participatory research particularly. The individual-in-environment model in social work practice instructs social work researchers to investigate the social and political repercussions of social work tasks, involving research (Corby 2006). Atkinson’s research also challenges an idea that puts emphasis entirely on the psychological gains and risks to research participants to the omission of other impacts. Becker (2005) warned that concentrating entirely on psychological health, such as symptom relief, insight, coping, and surviving, risks confusing social challenges as personal dilemmas to which individuals should adapt to and works to sustain the status quo. The study of Atkinson arose from her experiences and work with individuals with learning disabilities. She related to social constructionist perspectives and had research questions that examined mechanisms and symbol-creation that were not open to observational modalities or quantitative research. She conducted rigorous interviewing and focus group discussions as the main research method, depending on conceptual perspectives and sensitising ideas that offered an appropriate, narrative approach to the participatory endeavour. This essay argues, drawing from Atkinson’s research, that several healthy societal and personal outcomes ensue when studies are conducted within an epistemological perspective that recognises participants’ experiences and treats participants as trained learners. Three positive effects are identified in this article: (1) the rationale of being heard, understood, and appreciated and of having one’s story listened to without prejudice; (2) the opportunity to have one’s story narrated to others in such a manner as to express an opinion on an issue of collective experience, and (3) the awareness that outcomes will be disseminated to the general public, lawmakers, and providers. The third effect frequently offers disenfranchised populations, such as those with learning disability, hope that their experience will be integrated into the dominant culture in such a way that facilitates their destigmatisation, appreciation, and expression. Atkinson is accurate in stating that social work researchers should avoid a paternalistic idea that they are giving empowerment or ‘voice’. Preferably, researchers correctly identify, understand, and disseminate participants’ experiences (Hall, Juhila, Parton & Poso 2003); nevertheless, they are not providing research subjects something. According to Atkinson, individuals with learning disabilities may not have the knowledge on how to defy stigma or where to orient such problems. Social work researchers can contribute a lot in communicating a perspective that facilitates research subjects in viewing their life stories in context. This afterwards builds opportunities for establishing a political knowledge of the place of equally stigmatised and positioned individuals in society and advances the individual to determine what has been perceived as a personal dilemma or weakness is, probably primary, a societal concern (Sheppard 2004). This reality creates opportunities for defying societal prejudice rather than admitting the disgrace of stigma. Atkinson argued that participants and researchers in a participatory research build rapport and that the influence and strength of the relationship can have major societal and personal ramifications. Any strong rapport or relationship that could generate positive effects can also generate negative ones. It is immoral to disregard this possibility (Sheppard 2004). This essay discussed positive effects arising from this rapport because this is what Atkinson’s article is talking about. It is likely that detrimental effects of Atkinson’s study went unreported for a number of causes. The first is perhaps caused by social desirability bias (Humphries 2008); the research subjects commonly desire to gratify and are hesitant to insult by expressing uneasiness or other disadvantageous consequences. The second is perhaps because of selection prejudice (Humphries 2008); individuals who eagerly take part in Atkinson’s study may embody individuals for whom such involvement is more likely to be helpful than undesirable and who prefer to take part exactly because they perceive Atkinson’s study and their involvement in it as beneficial to their condition. The findings of Atkinson’s research may be biased by this feature of participatory method because it has been discerned in the analysis that the research subjects in the study showed high gratitude for the chance to share their stories. Nevertheless, these limitations do not lessen the power of the research subjects’ disclosed experiences of gains. The tremendously optimistic responses of Atkinson’s respondents are not out of the ordinary; comparable findings have been stated in other studies on responses to research involvement. These partialities spell out possible detrimental outcomes that originate from the research rapport. Atkinson’s article clearly substantiate the fact that researchers who refuse to accept the value of the research rapport, as separate from the value of the research method itself, are unaware of the possible implications, disadvantageous or beneficial. Hence, they will not expect them, and they will not wilfully investigate this possibility and lessen risk or potential harmful outcomes. Atkinson’s attention to strong rapports with her research subjects and her perception of them as knowledgeable may have restrained the possible detrimental outcomes of objectification innate in being a ‘respondent’. Maybe more interesting is the ethical consideration that the termination of the research rapport in the end of the data collection phase will be viewed and felt as a loss (Bryman et al. 2009). Atkinson carries on with her study, and then advances. Her research subjects are left behind, doubtful of the relevance of their inputs and perhaps feeling abandoned or used. It may take several years for research projects to be published or to join in therapeutic or policy areas, and if and even when this takes place, research subjects are not likely to be informed of these developments (Becker 2005). Social work researchers cannot virtually carry on with the relationship with any research subjects (Anastas 1999). To the point that researchers are capable of tendering some updates to participants, the experience of Atkinson demonstrates that this is welcomed. The possibility of negative outcome from the finale of the research rapport has to be more fully examined, and social work literature on ‘cessation of research relationship’ may tender direction for dealing with the termination of the research relationship. Another ramification of Atkinson’s article is for professionals who believe that they should safeguard participants from researchers. For example, legal representatives from the legal research aimed to make sure that participants would be treated deferentially and would be recompensed for their time and effort (Orme & Shemmings 2010). Social work researchers, like Atkinson, experience trouble in dealing with social work and clinical practitioners articulating concerns about the confidentiality of their clients. On acquiring access directly to participants, Atkinson discovered that they were willing to participate. Specialists usually mention privacy or confidentiality issues about negative consequences as causes of reluctance about taking part in research projects (Roberts & Yeager 2006). Atkinson’s findings should motivate professionals not to disallow or tolerate research involvement for subjects inconsiderately but to reflect on the safety and potential gains of such involvement. Conclusion Even though the analysis in this essay has been structured in the point of view of qualitative research, especially participatory research as adopted by Atkinson in her study of learning disability, the same issues can and should be addressed concerning any research in social work practice that perseveres to be ethical, reliable, and predisposed to social justice. Atkinson’s article puts emphasis on the value and ethical appropriateness of qualitative research, especially participatory method, in studying learning disability. However, other research paradigms or methods also require involvement of research subjects in the research project and, usually, rapport with a researcher. As a result, quantitative methods may have numerous of the same implications on research subjects when they are completely involved in the research project. This essay does not aim to confuse clinical objectives with research, as argued by Atkinson herself. But it has been discerned in this essay that Atkinson’s research subjects frequently applied the therapeutic language when thinking about their research involvement. In behalf of social work and qualitative research, these participants’ experiences should be given due importance. Investigating the rationale for these reactions is beneficial for interpreting the experience of taking part in social work research. It could also offer valuable strategies for researchers in how to submit the objectives of their research more completely with research subjects. Social work researchers must not allow valid issues about combining intervention and research discourage them from ethical and truthful discussion of the accompanying gains and risks that come from the relationship between participant and researcher and the research project. This essay’s findings from the study of Atkinson suggest that research subjects experienced beneficial outcomes from research involvement. These consequences involved destigmatisation, justification, a feeling of getting involved and making contribution, and improved awareness of the self. The research subjects may have felt or encountered some detrimental outcomes from taking part in Atkinson’s study; nevertheless, as depicted in the article, this essay argues it has none, perhaps because of Atkinson’s concern with responsible debriefing and knowledgeable stance about their research experience. Therefore, social work researchers should take into account these opportunities to heighten the beneficial outcomes and lessen the risk or detrimental consequences. To do otherwise is disreputable. References Anastas, J.W., 1999. Research Design for Social Work and the Human Services. New York: Columbia University Press. Becker, D., 2005. The myth of empowerment: Women and the therapeutic culture in America. New York: New York University Press. Bryman, A., Bell, E.A. & Teevan, J.J., 2009. Social Research Methods. UK: Oxford University Press. Corby, B., 2006. Applying Research in Social Work Practice. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Cotrell, S., 2005. Critical Thinking Skills. UK: Basingstoke, Palgrave. Denscombe, M., 2007. The Good Research Guide for Small Scale Social Research Projects. Buckingham: Open University Press. Grinnell, R.M. & Unrau, Y.A., 2005. Social Work Research and Evaluation: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches. New York: Oxford University Press. Hall, C., Juhila, K., Parton, N. & Poso, T., 2003. Constructing Clienthood in Social Work and Human Services: Interaction, Identities, and Practices. London: Jessica Kingsley. Humphries, B., 2008. Social Work Research for Social Justice. Basingstoke, Palgrave. Orme, J. & Shemmings, D., 2010. Developing Research Based Practice. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Nash, M., Munford, R. & O’Donoghue, K., 2005. Social Work Theories in Action. London: Jessica Kingsley. National Association of Social Workers, 2000. Code of ethics of the National Association of Social Workers. Washington, DC: http://www.socialworkers.org/pubs/code/ code.asp. Pennebaker, J.W., 2000. Telling stories: The health benefits of narrative. Literature and Medicine, 19(1), 3-18. Punch, M., 1986. The politics and ethics of fieldwork. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Roberts, A.R. & Yeager, K.R., 2006. Foundations of Evidence-Based Social Work Practice. New York: Oxford University Press. Sheppard, M., 2004. Appraising and Using Social Research in the Human Services: An Introduction for Social Work and Health Professionals. London: Jessica Kingsley. Turner, F.J., 2005. Social Work Diagnosis in Contemporary Practice. New York: Oxford University Press. Read More