Introducing current debates in disability researchIn short, the challenge is to pursue a geography with disabled people which seeks the goals of material justice and political emancipation that are shared by contemporary movements. (Gleeson 1996: 395) There have been several recent debates both within disability studies and geography about how disability issues should be researched and who should conduct such research. This debate has primarily centred on ideology and ethics, but has also focused on methodology per se.The debate in disability studies has centred on the arguments of a group of mainly British sociologists, Barnes (1992), Oliver (1992Oliver ( , 1999, Stone and Priestley (1996), andZarb (1992) (also see collections edited by Rioux andBach 1994 andBarnes andMercer 1997). These scholars argued that traditional research on disability issues is flawed and problematic in a number of respects. Most crucially, they suggested that disability research is not representative of disabled peoples' experiences and knowledges. This, they contended, was because a vast majority of research is conducted by non-disabled researchers. They argued that it is only disabled people who can know what it is like to be disabled and so only disabled people who can truly interpret and present data from other disabled people. Moreover, they noted that research concerning disability is invariably researcher-orientated based around the desires and agendas of the (non-disabled) researcher and able-bodied funding agencies rather than subject(s) of the research (disabled people).Indeed, Oliver (1992) argued that traditional research methodologies represent a `rape model of research' which is alienating and disempowers and disenfranchises disabled research participants by placing their knowledge into the hands of the researcher to interpret and make recommendations on their behalf. Researchers are compounding the oppression of disabled respondents through exploitation for academic gain. Drawing on work within feminism in particular, they argued that power-relations within the research process needs to be destabilized