1 / 22

Ann Fudge Schormans and Adrienne Chambon fschorm@mcmaster a.chambon@utoronto

Returning the Gaze: Ethical-Methodological Approaches in a Study with Persons with Intellectual Disabilities. Ann Fudge Schormans and Adrienne Chambon fschorm@mcmaster.ca a.chambon@utoronto.ca February 15 th , 2011.

barry-weaver
Download Presentation

Ann Fudge Schormans and Adrienne Chambon fschorm@mcmaster a.chambon@utoronto

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Returning the Gaze: Ethical-Methodological Approaches in a Study with Persons with Intellectual Disabilities Ann Fudge Schormans and Adrienne Chambon fschorm@mcmaster.ca a.chambon@utoronto.ca February 15th, 2011

  2. What does it mean to reconsider ethics when engaged in research with vulnerable populations, such as people with intellectual disabilities? How is the question of vulnerability informed by philosophical considerations about the nature of human subjects and our responsibility to vulnerability and human relationships?

  3. The practices and objects of representation engage the fundamental question of the humanity and/or dehumanization of lives.

  4. Each of us is constituted politically in part by virtue of the social vulnerability of our bodies—as a site of desire and physical vulnerability, as a site of a publicity at once assertive and exposed. Loss and vulnerability seem to follow from our being socially constituted bodies, attached to others, at risk of losing those attachments, exposed to others, at risk of violence by virtue of that exposure. (Judith Butler, 2004:20)

  5. When we consider the ordinary ways that we think about humanization and dehumanization, we find the assumption that those who gain representation, especially self-representation, have a better chance of being humanized, and those who have no chance to represent themselves run a great risk of being treated as less than human, regarded as less than human, or indeed, not regarded at all. (Judith Butler, 2004:141)

  6. What are the consequences and implications of conducting research in an ethical manner?

  7. Reconsidering:- access- interviewing- consent and informed consent- wounding

  8. The “What’s Wrong with this Picture?” Project

  9. Interrogative Encounters with Public Photographic Images of People with Intellectual and Developmental DisabilitiesTroubling Photographic Re-presentationsTrembling the (non)Disabled Gaze: Invite, Disrupt, and Engage with the Viewer’s Gaze

  10. Engagement:Presumption of CompetenceThe encounter with the Other is my responsibility for him. (Levinas, 1998) A Particular Form of Attentiveness

  11. Rethinking the Term / Terms of the Interview Cycles of Conversations Among Group Members and Between Researcher and Group Members

  12. Consent: About Process and the Continual Re-adjustment of the Encounter and the Work

  13. What do we do with the layers of reflexivity and potential wounding that occur as part and parcel of addressing and redressing forms of othering?When ‘wounding’ moves beyond being only an individual concern.Can – and should – wounding be avoided?

  14. Don’t Call Us Retarded!

  15. Don’t Use Our Picture Without Permission!

  16. Contact InformationAnn Fudge Schormans, Ph.D., R.S.W.McMaster Universityfschorm@mcmaster.caAdrienne Chambon, Ph.D.University of Torontoa.chambon@utoronto.ca

More Related