“We can empower ourselves”: A collaborative research methodology for (self)-empowering visually impaired research partners in conducting design research for and by themselves

This paper introduces a collaborative research methodology jointly developed by myself and two visually impaired research partners (RPRs): Mr. Yi and Mr. Yang, in our study exploring the application of Tangible User Interfaces (TUIs) (Ishii & Ullmer, 1997) in the lives of visually impaired individuals (VIIs) in the Chinese mainland city of Changsha. In this study, I rejected the notion of treating VIIs as research participants reliant on my empowerment or ‘instruments’ for providing research data, while partners Yi and Yang grew weary of participating in studies conducted in their name, where their discourse was limited, and outcomes had little impact on their lives. Guided by the interpretive philosophical perspective (Crotty, 1998), the social model of (dis)ability (UPIAS, 1976), and the emancipatory research paradigm (Oliver, 1992; French & Swain, 1997), and bolstered by our established friendship in the context of our research (Tillmann-Healy, 2003), we constructed a methodology (see Table 1) and research framework (see Figure 1) that aligned with our relationship and our shared and distinct research objectives.

Acknowledging the inherent hierarchical power dynamics associated with the terms "researcher-participant" (Karnieli-Miller et al., 2009) and the inadequacy of "co-researcher" and "collaborator" to convey the closeness and equality of our partnership (Biggs, 1989), we collectively adopted the term "research partner" (RPR). This term more accurately reflected our position within the research process, located at the intersection of research collaborators and friends. Throughout the research, our collaboration was primarily guided by collaborative and consultative modes of engagement (Biggs, 1989), emphasizing teamwork, acknowledging our shared and distinct objectives, and ensuring equal attention and value in our contributions (Bigby et al., 2014).

Principles of the Co-Tailored Collaborative Research Methodology
· The research team consists of voluntary RPRs who hold equal status within the team.

· The well-being, rights, and interests of the RPRs take precedence over the research. The RPRs engage in mutual supervision to safeguard against any potential coercion, inducement, or deception, and uphold transparency throughout the research.

· Power in research activities is shared among the RPRs. From research design to research outputs dissemination, all research decisions are collaboratively made by the research partners.

· The RPRs collaborate in accessible, convenient, and innovative ways, proactively addressing any obstacles that hinder collaboration.

· The ethical review of the research is an ongoing process that permeates the entire study. Ethical issues are addressed by the RPRs through negotiation.

· The RPRs take turns assuming leadership roles in different research sections based on their individual knowledge, resources, and willingness, allowing each of them to harness their strengths and work together in a complementary manner.

· The research embraces a flexible, reflective, and iterative paradigm. Progression to the next phase of the research necessitates the consensus of all RPRs, ensuring that each RPR's perspectives are fully expressed and taken into account.

· The research outputs address both shared and individual objectives of the RPRs, ensuring each RPR benefits directly from the outputs. Ownership of the research outputs collectively belongs to the team.
Table 1

Figure 1

By employing this methodology, the research becoming a collective venture for all three partners: for me, an integral part of my doctoral thesis; for partner Yi, a valuable addition to his curriculum vitae; and for partner Yang, an interface prototype for his business plan. The partners acknowledged that the methodology set this research apart from their previous participated projects. In this research, they emerged as the architects of the research, took control of the research agenda, guiding the exploration and resolution of issues they genuinely wanted to address. The expected research outputs were achieved: a tangible audio editing interface prototype. Additionally, they acquired new knowledge about research and interface design. Their motivation extends to disseminating our research outputs: as I write papers disseminating our collaboratively constructed methodology in academia, they share our co-designed interface through social networks and initiate additional transformative practices.


The partners in the design workshop, hardware testing, and prototype evaluation

This paper commences by elucidating the motivation behind the collaborative approach. Subsequently, it presents the theoretical inspirations for the proposed collaborative model, encompassing the interpretive philosophical perspective, the social model of (dis)ability, the emancipatory research paradigm, and the friendship approach. Following this, the paper provides a detailed exposition of the research process, introducing encountered divergences and their resolutions. The paper concludes with an examination of the limitations of this approach.
Rather than advocating for this methodology as a template, the intention of this paper is to suggest research teams reflecting the hidden colonialism and hierarchy embedded in paradigms that unquestionably categorize VIIs as dependent and in need of aid, while positioning researchers as capable empowerers in a superior role (Darroch & Giles, 2014; Teixeira et al., 2021). The expertise and inquisitive spirit demonstrated by partners Yi and Yang in this study demonstrate that within research contexts, VIIs have the autonomy and capability to make decisions for and by themselves (Udoewa, 2022a, 2022b). These are inherent to them rather than being bestowed upon or empowered by others (Oliver, 1992; Zarb, 1992; French & Swain, 1997). Therefore, we recommend this sustainable collaborative approach to researchers and VIIs committed to fostering equal partnerships: coordinating the expertise, willingness, and objectives of all engaged individuals or parties to design a collaborative framework, facilitating all to engage in research as self-empowered research directors, owners, and disseminators.

















References
Bigby, C., Frawley, P., & Ramcharan, P. (2014). Conceptualizing inclusive research with people with intellectual disability. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 27(1), 3-12.
Biggs, S. D. (1989). Resource-poor farmer participation in research: a synthesis of experiences from national agricultural research systems. OFCOR-Comparative study (Netherlands) no. 3.
Crotty, M. J. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Darroch, F., & Giles, A. (2014). Decolonizing health research: Community-based participatory research and postcolonial feminist theory. The Canadian Journal of Action Research, 15(3), 22-36.
French, S., & Swain, J. (1997). Changing disability research: Participating and emancipatory research with disabled people. Physiotherapy, 1(83), 26-32.
Ishii, H., & Ullmer, B. (1997, March). Tangible bits: towards seamless interfaces between people, bits and atoms. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 234-241).
Karnieli-Miller, O., Strier, R., & Pessach, L. (2009). Power relations in qualitative research. Qualitative health research, 19(2), 279-289.
Oliver, M. (1992). Changing the social relations of research production?. Disability, handicap & society, 7(2), 101-114.
Teixeira, S., Augsberger, A., Richards‐Schuster, K., & Sprague Martinez, L. (2021). Participatory research approaches with youth: Ethics, engagement, and meaningful action. American Journal of Community Psychology, 68(1-2), 142-153.
Udoewa, V. (2022a). Radical participatory design: Awareness of participation. Journal of Awareness-Based Systems Change, 2(2), 59-84.
Udoewa, V. (2022b). An introduction to radical participatory design: decolonising participatory design processes. Design Science, 8, e31.
UPIAS. (1976). Fundamental Principles of Disability. London: Union of the Physically Impaired Against Segregation.
Zarb, G. (1992). On the road to Damascus: First steps towards changing the relations of disability research production. Disability, Handicap & Society, 7(2), 125-138.