Inclusion or outcomes? Tensions in the involvement of people with learning disabilities in strategic planning

Abstract

Social inclusion is a key principle which underpins the provision of services for people with learning disabilities in England. Learning Disability Partnership Boards, which are responsible for local strategic planning of learning disability services, hold a particular role in promoting inclusion since they are required both to operate inclusively and to achieve inclusive outcomes. This study sought to explore the extent to which these ambitions for inclusion were being achieved. It consisted of three phases: a scoping exercise to elicit the views of key stakeholders; a postal survey of Partnership Boards (response rate 51%); and semi-structured interviews with Partnership Boards members in six local authorities. Findings suggest that Partnership Boards are struggling to fulfil their dual role, with tensions emerging between the desire to operate in fully inclusive ways and the ability to affect strategic change within local services. Key words Inclusion

The added value of inclusive research

“…At the centre of inclusive research practice has been the challenge of sharing power between academic and co‐researchers (Walmsley & Johnson, ). While observers including Fyson and Fox () and Nind & Vinha (, ) argue that more emphasis needs to be placed upon outcomes in a second generation of inclusive research, here the authors argue that process findings can be as important. A principal reason for undertaking inclusive research is to explore how to recognize and foster the contributions people with intellectual disabilities can make.…”

“…This has at times come to prevail over the need for the research to be credible and productive, hence calls, like Nind's, for a “second generation” to move away from an obsession with process. As Fyson and Fox (, p. 251) put it: “Spending time to make meetings inclusive is important, but continually focusing on matters of process and losing sight of wider outcomes is problematic.” Further, it has been argued that attention to the process of achieving an inclusive process has at times taken precedence over ensuring that the research has an impact beyond the immediate team. Hence, the calls for a shift of emphasis to consider outcomes (Fyson & Fox, ).…”

Counting inclusion with Chantal Mouffe: a radical democratic approach to intellectual disability research

“…As such, individual purposes such as feeling included threaten to eclipse collective aims. Fyson and Fox (2014), for example, argue that disability groups need to continue fighting for increased funding for disability supports and services. Making demands for more funding in the public sphere, however, may disrupt harmonious relationships.…”

‘In whom we trust?’ The experiences of trustees in learning disability charities

“…Service agencies have been criticised for perpetuating a narrow, formal view of representation, with all its inherent biases and barriers for disabled people (Beresford and Campbell, 2006: 186). The engagement and inclusion of disabled people as service-users has been shown to work well when their participation is meaningful and empowering (Fyson and Fox, 2014;Hoole and Morgan, 2011). Notwithstanding, debate about the representation and involvement of disabled people tends to be pitched at the operational level of service delivery, with less attention to representation and involvement in relation to governance.…”

“…We narrow our analysis to charities that work with and/or for people with learning disabilities (henceforth, learning disability charities). As charitable organisations they have not been subject to extensive analysis in recent policy contexts (Fyson and Fox, 2014;Acheson 2001;Drake 1996;1994). Their governance is rooted in a politicized relationship between the Disabled People's Movement, the fundamental ethos of charity and how charitable organisations enact this ethos.…”