Article Text
Abstract
People with disabilities are subject to multiple forms of health-related and wider social disparities; carefully focused research is required to inform more inclusive, safe and effective healthcare practice and policy. Through lived experience, disabled people are well positioned to identify and persistently pursue problems and opportunities within existing health provisions that may be overlooked by a largely non-disabled research community. Thus, the academy can play an important role in shining a light on the perspectives and insights from within the disability community, and combined with policy decisions, these perspectives and insights have a better opportunity to become integrated into the fabric of public life, within healthcare and beyond. However, despite the potential benefits that could be yielded by greater inclusivity, in this paper we describe barriers within the UK academy confronting disabled people who wish to embark on health research. We do this by drawing on published findings, and via the lived experience of the first author, who has struggled for over 3 years to find an accessible PhD programme as a person with energy limiting conditions who is largely confined to the home in the UK. First, we situate the discussion in the wider perspective of epistemic injustice in health research. Second, we consider evidence of epistemic injustice among disabled researchers, focusing primarily on what philosophers Kidd and Carel (2017, p 184) describe as ‘strategies of exclusion’. Third, we offer recommendations for overcoming these barriers to improve the pipeline of researchers with disabilities in the academy.
- Disabled Persons
- Ethics
- Philosophy
- Quality of Health Care
- Policy
Data availability statement
Data sharing not applicable as no datasets generated and/or analysed for this study.
This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Data availability statement
Data sharing not applicable as no datasets generated and/or analysed for this study.
Footnotes
X @JoElizaHunt, @crblease
JH and CB contributed equally.
Contributors Both authors contributed equally to all aspects of the paper. As corresponding author, JH acts as guarantor.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Other content recommended for you
- Epistemic injustice in healthcare encounters: evidence from chronic fatigue syndrome
- Epistemic injustice, children and mental illness
- Epistemic injustice in psychiatric practice: epistemic duties and the phenomenological approach
- Patients, clinicians and open notes: information blocking as a case of epistemic injustice
- The Ableist stare: an interdisciplinary, narrative-driven exploration of staring at disabled bodies
- Will psychology ever ‘join hands’ with disability studies? Opportunities and challenges in working towards structurally competent and disability-affirmative psychotherapy for energy limiting conditions
- Where is knowledge from the global South? An account of epistemic justice for a global bioethics
- Evidence, ethics and the promise of artificial intelligence in psychiatry
- ‘The body says it’: the difficulty of measuring and communicating sensations of breathlessness
- Reflections and intersections: disability, ‘ableism’ and metamodern leadership