‘Disability Means, um, Dysfunctioning People’: A Qualitative Analysis of the Meaning and Experience of Disability among Adults with Intellectual Disabilities

Abstract

Participants' clearly experienced feelings of difference, despite a lack of articulation. Limited understanding of both terminology and conceptualization of disability status could negatively impact self-esteem, person-centred actions and political movement.

People with intellectual disabilities at the end of their lives: The case for specialist care?

“…In Nikmat et al's study of 49 older people with dementia, those who were living at home experienced higher QoL, activities of daily living and social connectedness compared with those living in institutional care. Moreover, unlike some residences (Cook, Thompson, & Reed, 2014) LH appeared to operate in a genuinely "homely" fashion, with very few limits and routines placed on residents, in a manner consistent with social identity research (Monteleone & Forrester-Jones, 2017). However, whilst the pattern of LH residents' social support was very similar to that found in other studies of people with intellectual disabilities (Forrester-Jones et al, 2006;Sango & Forrester-Jones, 2017), their mean network size was very small.…”

Is it possible to use interpretative phenomenological analysis in research with people who have intellectual disabilities?

“…Sixteen papers were rated as “acceptable” (Anslow, ; Brown & Beail, ; Dysch, Chung, & Fox, ; Gould & Dodd, ; Kenyon, Beail, & Jackson, ; MacMahon et al, ; Malik, Unwin, Larkin, Kroese, & Rose, ; McRitchie, McKenzie, Quayle, Harlin, & Neumann, ; Mitchell, Clegg, & Furniss, ; Monteleone & Forrester‐Jones, ; Newberry, Martin, & Robbins, ; Robinson, Escopri, Stenfert Kroese, & Rose, ; Rushbrooke, Murray, & Townsend, ; Shewan, McKenzie, Quayle, & Crawley, ; Sullivan et al, ; Wilson et al, ). All of these papers subscribed to the theoretical principles of IPA.…”

“…The sample sizes for the papers in this review appeared in line with this recommendation, with the exception of four papers. Judge et al, (2010) In 13 of the papers, the homogeneity of the sample was either poorly rationalized, poorly achieved or both (Dysch et al, 2012;Judge et al, 2010;Kenyon et al, 2014;MacDonald et al, 2003;Malik et al, 2017;Monteleone & Forrester-Jones 2017);Robinson et al, 2016;Roscoe et al, 2016;Rushbrooke et al, 2014;Sullivan et al, 2016;Wilson et al, 2013). Sampling strategies which do not articulate the shared perspective upon the phenomenon of interest not only violate the idiographic philosophy of IPA, but also impact on the researcher's ability to formulate theories (Smith, 1999) only (e.g., Sullivan et al, 2016).…”

“Tourette’s Is a Lonely Place”: an Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis of the Personal Experience and Identity of Adults with Tourette’s Syndrome

“…This was mainly due to the fact that these participants perceived the differences between other people with TS and themselves as more salient than the differences to individuals who did not have TS and were members of other groups. Indeed, as is evident from the findings, participants with TS that had accepted their status were keen to make self-enhancing downward comparison to other individuals that had TS (Wills 1981;Monteleone and Forrester-Jones 2017). They compared themselves to individuals that had more pronounced or severe symptomology and therefore viewed themselves as occupying a more favourable position than less fortunate others with TS.…”