Introduction
Research should be accessible to everyone: the researchers producing knowledge; the participants from whom data is collected; and the members of the public who read and make use of the outcomes. Communication of results is the focus of a later section of the Hub (Accessible Communication) so will not be considered here.
Accessibility is relational and it is important to challenge the normative notions of ability that locate the ‘problem’ of access in individuals. Instead, we should think of access as a function of the design of environments, objects, projects, and concepts. This idea is closely related to the social model of disability and the concept of Universal Design: “designing all products, buildings and exterior spaces to be usable by all people to the greatest extent possible” [1]. In this section, you will see that issues of accessibility are deeply linked to themes of bias and representation which have been explored previously.
Social Model of Disability
This video introduces the social model of disability. Think about how this applies to the various environments, objects, and projects involved in your research. What changes can you make to ensure your research enables people to take part, rather than disables them?
When considering access for researchers we might ask: is your lab or office accessible to people with different physical or sensory access requirements; are your job advertisements and general communications accessible to people with different language or communication needs – even subtle wording choices can act to discourage certain people from applying for jobs [2]; have you considered the safety of minoritised groups when planning fieldwork? Moreover, is your working environment a place that centres gender equity, anti-racism, and disability rights? If so, how is this demonstrated? It is not enough to just think ‘yes, I value these things’. Creating access is an active process.
When thinking about access for those participating in research there are further things to consider. For example: full-time workers may not be able to participate on weekdays; people without access to a computer or smartphone may not be able to complete an online survey; a person with caring responsibilities might not be able to pay for cover whilst they participate in research.
There are many factors to consider when thinking about accessibility and this can seem daunting. However, there are many instances when an adaptation made to improve accessibility for one group ends up making something accessible for others. This is known as the ‘Curb Cut Effect’. For example, providing closed captions not only benefits people who are d/Deaf or Hard of Hearing, they are also beneficial for people with ADHD or Autism. They are also helpful for people who are non-native English speakers or those who are learning to read.
From these examples, we can see particular themes around accessibility emerging: communication methods, accessible spaces, methodological exclusions, and socioeconomic barriers. Those working in research have a responsibility to consider and address all the ways in which projects and environments may disable people from taking part.
Activity
Art for Social Change (Social Sciences/Arts)
Watch the video ‘Art for Social Change’ by Dr Rebecca Yeo. How accessible is your work for people with different communication needs? In particular, how would you adapt your research to work with, or communicate it to, someone who is
- is d/Deaf and is a British Sign Language user.
- is d/Deaf or Hard of Hearing and not a British Sign Language User.
- is blind or has low vision.
- has low English literacy.
EEG Accessibility (Neuroscience)
Watch the video ‘EEG and Hair’ by Lietsel Richardson where she discusses issues with EEG research. Think about the following questions:
- Are there examples of methodological exclusion in your research project or wider discipline?
- Who is responsible for methodological exclusions; the researcher, the equipment manufacturers, or both?
Practical Steps and Tools
Communication Methods
- Think about where and how you advertise for participants. If recruitment mainly happens in certain spaces, e.g. university or hospital environments, you are already implicitly selecting for certain kinds of people. Engage with patient-participant involvement (see Co-Creation and Collaboration) and think outside the box for how to engage as many people as possible.
- Are your communication methods suitable for a range of needs? The UK Government has comprehensive guidance on accessible communication formats and the University of Bristol offers a range of advice on accessible digital communication.
- Communicate about your research in both audio and visual formats.
- Be prepared to arrange interpreters, translators and translated/alternative format study materials as necessary.
Methodological Exclusion
Think about the methods you will use in your research. Are they likely to disproportionately exclude one group more than others? What adaptations can be made to research equipment and methodologies to make them more accessible?
- Read the Good Things Foundation guide on digital inclusion. Supply phones or tablets if necessary.
- Consider the structure of participant sessions. Think about how much energy is required and whether rest breaks are allowed, even within short sessions. Should someone with a disability have a flare-up or is unable to make their session, can people reschedule without any issues?
- Limit the uncertainty in expectations for study participation. Provide as much information in advance as possible, such as interview questions, an itinerary, clear directions, and photographs of the study location and/or equipment.
Accessible Spaces
- Think about the physical locations where research is conducted. Are they accessible for researchers, collaborators, and research participants?
- Think about the sensory environment, particularly for people who are neurodivergent. This is important even when not the focus of the study, anyone in a research space could be neurodivergent. Can the levels of sensory stimulation be adapted to suit peoples needs? Will people be able to use techniques for emotional or sensory self-regulation without judgement or criticism?
- When working with people of other nationalities, think about passport and visa access. This is particularly important for when partnerships span the global north and global south. Visit our Resources page to use the Passport and Visa Equity Toolkit by the TEPSO (Towards Equal Partnerships with Global South) project.
- Does fieldwork pose a risk to people with marginalised identities on the research team? Develop a field research safety manual: Using ‘A guide for developing a field research safety manual that explicitly considers risks for marginalized identities in the sciences’ by Rudzki et al. and the COMET Fieldwork Guidelines to help.
Socioeconomic Barriers
- Cover costs for everyone involved in the research (participants, community partners, researchers). The basic principle is that no-one should be out-of-pocket, consider costs related to transport, internet access, caring responsibilities, and food and drink
- Explore other (non-financial) kinds of compensation for study participation, such as providing child-care, food and drink, or transport. Ensure that dietary and allergy requirements are identified and catered for.
- Work with community groups to advertise and communicate research widely to a range of people.
- Provide flexible schedules for meetings and appointments to enable participation for people with a range of working or caring commitments.
References and Further Resources
In ‘Universal Design for Inclusive Science’ by Nazanin Heydarian, the author provides a lived experience perspective on how science research can be made more inclusive by considering accessibility.
‘Accessibility in Research: from Design to Dissemination’ by Honisch & Gill is an extensive toolkit covering accessibility considerations throughout the research process.
‘Supporting digital inclusion in healthcare project’ is a project by The King’s Fund that has a lot of resources on the importance of digital equity.
The Elizabeth Blackwell Institute have a toolkit to improve pre-award processes to reduce inequality. This aims to help funders and institutions design funding calls in a more accessible way.
