Fase II: Evaluación del sistema de control interno

Initially, within Disability Studies and the Disabled Peoples’ Movements there was substantial concern about having a positivist or interpretivist approach to disability research. Prior to the growth of Disability Studies in the 1980s, most disability research had had its roots in medicine or medically-related disciplines and had adopted quantitative and approaches within a positivist paradigm (Hammersley, 1995).

Research within that tradition was seen to understand disability in a

particular set of ways which began to be challenged by disabled academics and activists (Danieli & Woodhams, 2005; Oliver, 1988). Research within this positivist paradigm was criticised for increasing oppression towards persons with disabilities (E. Stone & Priestley, 1996) on the basis of its ontological assumptions of an individualistic medical model of disability and because it was construed as seeing persons with disabilities as research objects (Turmusani, 2004). In terms of epistemological frameworks, positivism was challenged on the grounds that it understood disability from the view of non- disabled researchers and was not linked to disabled persons’ experience and

98 understanding of disability (Danieli & Woodhams, 2005). In addition,

positivists were also criticised for their failure to bring about change including positive policy outcomes for persons with disabilities (Oliver, 1992).

Critiques of positivism were already common among sociologists who developed interpretive research paradigms that recognise the subjective nature of the social world and questioned whether it could be treated in the same way as in the natural world (Bryman, 2008; Creswell, 2008; Robson, 2011). Interpretivism which seeks the cultural and historical interpretations of real life (Crotty, 1998 cited in Gray, 2009) focused more on disability as a facet of human difference. Moreover, interpretivists believed that the

researcher must understand the meanings that represent the particular social action through interpretation (Schwandt, 2003). For some time, the

interpretive approach along with the adoption of qualitative research tended to dominate social science research on disability. This paradigm also

espouses a participatory approach and interprets disability issues from the perspectives of those involved (Bury, 1996). In more recent years, more quantitative research has been undertaken but it can be argued that the approach has been shaped by earlier critiques within Disability Studies (Gordon et al., 2000).

The challenges in the 1990s by disabled academics and activists were not simply reserved for positivism. All forms of research were beginning to be judged according to what their benefit was to disabled people. Drawing on the feminist and postmodern perspectives which emphasise the importance

99 of individual experience, disability researchers have called for more inclusive research with persons with disabilities at the heart of the process (Barnes, 1992; Morris, 1992; Oliver, 1992). Influenced by social model of disability (Walmsley, 2001) such researchers have argued that the only way to produce ‘un-alienated’ research is to fundamentally change the social relations of research production (Oliver, 1992).

Thus, many disability movements have urged that the emancipatory

paradigm should be espoused in disability research (Danieli & Woodhams, 2005; French & Swain, 1997; Stone & Priestley, 1996) so as to eliminate the marginalisation of persons with disabilities and to have a significant effect on their empowerment and the practical policies which benefit their lives

(Barnes, 2003). Emancipatory research also supports the slogan of disability movements “Nothing about us without us” (Walmsley, 2005:735) which seeks the participation of persons with disabilities in any disability research. While many have emphasised the importance of participation, others have

emphasised that participation alone does not inevitably mean that research is conducted within an emancipatory paradigm.

Oliver (1992) has emphasised that the importance of disability research is not in the participation but the relevance of the research reflecting the real lives of persons with disabilities, which may have meaningful impact on the policy outcomes. He set the emancipatory research agenda by addressing six key standards of quality research enquiring into what are the research questions should be addressed, who decides what they are, what are the

100 theoretical underpinnings of the process and the questions to be researched, who controls and what difference you could make for disabled people. Similarly, Goodley & Lawthom ( 2006) suggest that disability researchers should be mindful of eight key questions in terms of inclusion, accountability, praxis, dialectics, ontology, disablism or impairment, partisan and analytical levels of the research asking about the participation of disabled people, the possession of the research, the understanding of impairment and the impact of disability research. Discussing further on this, Goodley ( 2011)

summarises the debates and emphasises three fundamental issues: the ownership, involvement and application of the research. This signifies the questions of who did the research (by whom), who was involved in the research (with whom) and what is the impact of the research (for whom). In reviewing this argument, Goodley (2011) underline three positions of disability studies –non-participatory, participatory and emancipatory- by recapitulating the position of Barnes (1996), (Shakespeare & Watson (1997) and Oliver (1998). Barnes (1996) argued for a strong position on

emancipatory approach whereby the researcher must work with

organisations of people with disabilities to adopt social model research which aims to provide significant impact on the politics of disability. Shakespeare (1997) on the other hand is claimed to consider that research can be academic and non-participatory as long as the aim of disability studies of theorising and tackling disabling society is achieved. Furthermore, for him, the developed theories also could be applied further in emancipatory

101 research. Finally, Oliver (1998) supports participatory research which is positioned in between emancipatory and non-participatory research. He believes that in order to produce a meaningful research, disability studies researchers should strive to achieve the aims and targets of disabled people. The debates on research within Disability Studies have been influential in relation to this thesis. This project is attempting to addressing questions related to issues which have repeatedly been identified as important by disabled people -how to have the right to a life in work and the workplace (Barnes et al., 1999; Barnes, 2003; International Labour Office, 2008). As such, this research explores one of the most important aspects of the lives of persons with learning difficulties. It aims to find out about the experience of people with learning difficulties themselves and it also seeks to understand how others who are significantly-placed to assist or hinder them in this regard- government officials, NGOs coordinators and company managers – perceive the ability of this group to work and what they see as appropriate provision.