View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Collaboration and Co-Creation in Autism Research: A Reflection on the Challenges and Benefits of Participatory Approaches in Doctoral Research

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Collaboration and Co-Creation in Autism Research: A Reflection on the Challenges and Benefits of Participatory Approaches in Doctoral Research
Language: English
Authors: Ellen Taylor-Bower, Kate Plaisted-Grant, Stephanie Archer
Source: Educational Action Research. 2025 33(1):183-189.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 7
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Evaluative
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Autism Spectrum Disorders, Participatory Research, Research Design, Research Methodology, Research Projects, Medical Research, Collaborative Writing, Doctoral Students, Experiential Learning, Performance Based Assessment, Social Science Research, Advisory Committees, Research Committees
DOI: 10.1080/09650792.2024.2329195
ISSN: 0965-0792
1747-5074
Abstract: Drawing upon ongoing research exploring lived experiences of sensory overload, meltdown, and shutdown in autism as a framework, this article reflects on the challenges and benefits of employing participatory methods in doctoral research. In particular, the process of establishing and working with a Research Advisory Group to co-create a multi-stage research project is evaluated and reflected upon. Applying participatory approaches such as this to doctoral research elicits practical challenges beyond those associated with either participatory research or doctoral study alone. In particular, strategic project planning and time management is vital, given the often labour-intensive and time-consuming nature of participatory methods and the time constraints of doctoral research. Similarly, questions around collaborative design and co-creation must be addressed when balancing participatory engagement with the assessment-based requirements of doctoral study. Additional challenges also arise when considering the more specific application of participatory methods to research with marginalised or vulnerable groups, including the need to consciously and critically evaluate researcher positionality, as well as questions of how to meaningfully 'give voice' to communities while still producing high-quality and feasible academic research. However, despite these challenges, the benefits of employing participatory approaches within health and social care doctoral research cannot be overstated, given the capacity for such research to engage with, and respond to, community needs, while promoting positive real-world impact. As such, this article concludes by presenting reflective suggestions for how the use of participatory approaches might be further encouraged and facilitated within the context of PhD research.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1458920
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwE4_SRWgsET5AqMWw5-2FHYAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDEP_8LnTaaM-jIC3EQIBEICBm96o2X7AQVruOVr8I2KuAT7T5u7RQZ14mHOPzLjNZVbTsuqGziGhAMDaV4qTSp93hTDL1CpE8tsNJoF7OZU8uDqr0NoHZd_0hKS87JTQ0kGJjtnAehphvFrG1Eg56YlucQsuuJdPzl3pyRCEK1UezZ1-SMmajyL4BUi-8eEfDDC591mTttZi9m9TxjtkFJOb9Aztvl7ukORtnrBY
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0182438366;gp001feb.25;2025Jan28.02:46;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0182438366-1">Collaboration and co-creation in autism research: a reflection on the challenges and benefits of participatory approaches in doctoral research </title> <p>Drawing upon ongoing research exploring lived experiences of sensory overload, meltdown, and shutdown in autism as a framework, this article reflects on the challenges and benefits of employing participatory methods in doctoral research. In particular, the process of establishing and working with a Research Advisory Group to co-create a multi-stage research project is evaluated and reflected upon. Applying participatory approaches such as this to doctoral research elicits practical challenges beyond those associated with either participatory research or doctoral study alone. In particular, strategic project planning and time management is vital, given the often labour-intensive and time-consuming nature of participatory methods and the time constraints of doctoral research. Similarly, questions around collaborative design and co-creation must be addressed when balancing participatory engagement with the assessment-based requirements of doctoral study. Additional challenges also arise when considering the more specific application of participatory methods to research with marginalised or vulnerable groups, including the need to consciously and critically evaluate researcher positionality, as well as questions of how to meaningfully 'give voice' to communities while still producing high-quality and feasible academic research. However, despite these challenges, the benefits of employing participatory approaches within health and social care doctoral research cannot be overstated, given the capacity for such research to engage with, and respond to, community needs, while promoting positive real-world impact. As such, this article concludes by presenting reflective suggestions for how the use of participatory approaches might be further encouraged and facilitated within the context of PhD research.</p> <p>Keywords: Participatory research; research advisory group; lived experience; autism; collaboration</p> <hd id="AN0182438366-2">Introduction</hd> <p>While disabled and/or neurodivergent populations are generally overrepresented in health and social care settings (Emerson et al. [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref1">9</reflink>]), their voices and lived expertise have traditionally been absent from mainstream research in these areas (Goodley et al. [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref2">10</reflink>]). As well as generating a sizeable knowledge gap, this oversight creates dissonance between community needs and the focus of academic research (Pellicano et al. [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref3">14</reflink>]).</p> <p>The adoption of participatory and collaborative approaches is overdue in the field of autism research. Recent studies have suggested that academic autism research is frequently perceived as negative by autistic individuals and their advocates (Dawson and Fletcher-Watson [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref4">6</reflink>]; Gowen et al. [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref5">11</reflink>]; Pellicano et al. [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref6">14</reflink>]), with autistic communities feeling simultaneously exploited and ignored by mainstream autism research; being treated as 'subjects' rather than 'participants' or 'collaborators', and having their lived experiences overlooked or invalidated (DePape and Lindsay [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref7">7</reflink>]; Pellicano and Stears [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref8">15</reflink>]). When lived experiences are reported in autism research, these are frequently those of parents and carers, rather than autistic individuals themselves (DePape and Lindsay [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref9">7</reflink>]; Pellicano et al. [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref10">14</reflink>]).</p> <p>This has led to widespread distrust of academic research among autistic communities (Dawson and Fletcher-Watson [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref11">6</reflink>]; Pellicano and Stears [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref12">15</reflink>]; Pellicano et al. [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref13">14</reflink>]), further exacerbating the division between community needs and the current directions of academic research (Chown et al. [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref14">3</reflink>]; Costley et al. [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref15">5</reflink>]). This distrust and division must be resolved, both as a matter of ethical obligation, and as a necessary step towards ensuring the feasibility and quality of future research in this area.</p> <p>This is where participatory approaches offer a way forward. A central tenet of participatory research is the shift of the balance of power between researcher and participant, challenging traditional hierarchical power structures in academic research (Arnstein [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref16">1</reflink>]; Cornish et al. [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref17">4</reflink>]; Keating [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref18">12</reflink>]). At the more developed levels of participatory research, this can mean communities and stakeholders are actively and meaningfully involved in decision making throughout the research process (Arnstein [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref19">1</reflink>]).</p> <p>In the current research, as well as promoting positive working relationships between autistic communities and academic researchers (including myself as an autistic researcher), taking a participatory approach aimed to ensure the research addressed relevant and salient questions, and approached these using methods and materials appropriate and acceptable to the communities involved (Chown et al. [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref20">3</reflink>]; Gowen et al. [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref21">11</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0182438366-3">Working with a Research Advisory Group in doctoral study</hd> <p>One of the most direct ways of facilitating participatory research and ensuring community voices are represented and respected throughout the lifespan of a project is by establishing and working with a Research Advisory Group (RAG) specific to the research in question (Botha [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref22">2</reflink>]; Chown et al. [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref23">3</reflink>]).</p> <p>In the ongoing doctoral research central to this article, this meant establishing a RAG that would be able to collaborate across all phases of a multi-stage, mixed-methods, research project, working closely with the research team for a period of months or even years. The research itself aims to develop a better understanding of sensory overloads, shutdowns, and meltdowns in autism, utilising a large-scale online survey, semi-structured in-depth individual interviews, and a study gathering both qualitative self-report diary data and physiological data from wearable devices over a period of several months. This will facilitate the development of a framework for understanding these experiences in terms of their similarities and differences, with a particular focus on how these are experienced by individuals both psychologically and physiologically.</p> <p>The aim was that the design and implementation of each stage of the project, as well as its specific procedures, questions, measures, and materials, would be decided through close collaboration with the RAG. As such, it was crucial that this process began prior to obtaining ethical approval for the research, to ensure the RAG was able to meaningfully impact the scope, design, and conduct of the project, rather than simply 'rubber-stamping' an already designed and approved project.</p> <p>However, while the process of establishing and working with a RAG prior to ethical approval is accepted, and indeed encouraged, within health and social care research, this approach is much less established, or even understood, in doctoral study. While my peers spent their first year working on their literature reviews and ethics applications, I appeared to progress to the 'participant testing' stage 'ahead' of them, while simultaneously being 'behind' them in terms of completing my ethics application and the subsequent review process. This non-standard progression through the PhD programme meant I was often unsure how my progress compared with what was expected of me. Similarly, this less-familiar approach to research design and the ethical process led to some conflicts with both ethics committees and potential funding bodies, with their largely positivist and biomedical-focused research paradigms often at-odds with the needs and values of participatory research, and even qualitative research more generally (De Poli and Oyebode, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref24">8</reflink>]; Stevenson et al. [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref25">16</reflink>]).</p> <p>The apparently slow beginning to my PhD due to the time-consuming nature of participatory research was something I spent a large portion of my first-year report explaining and justifying, alongside other nuances unfamiliar to those from more traditional research backgrounds. This included explaining the differences between advisers/collaborators and research participants, including the different criteria for recruiting RAG members compared to study participants. While quantitative and experimental researchers may typically recruit distinct experimental and control groups of participants based on strict inclusion and exclusion criteria, the aim when recruiting a RAG is often to ensure the representation of as wide a range of salient identities, experiences, and opinions as possible.</p> <p>In my own research, this meant including individuals with a range of autistic experiences, diagnostic histories, and support needs, as well as from diverse demographic backgrounds. While this proved challenging within the time limits imposed by the PhD course, having this diversity of experience facilitated more meaningful and nuanced discussion around topics of potential contention. This was particularly valuable when considering how different prior experiences of research, healthcare, and the autism diagnosis process could impact how participants might approach the research experience, including their potential expectations and anxieties, and how we could address this through the design and communication of the studies, their methods, and their aims. Without incorporating these diverse experiences and identities in the composition of the RAG, it is unlikely that we could have anticipated and addressed these potential challenges.</p> <hd id="AN0182438366-4">The challenges of participatory doctoral research</hd> <p>One of the major practical challenges of participatory doctoral research is time management. The deadlines and structured progress of PhD programmes in general makes them typically ill-equipped to accommodate research approaches that do not follow this expected timeline. As participatory research practices often require significant set-up time, establishing and working with a RAG can delay meeting PhD milestones for submitting ethics applications, beginning data collection, and even being in a position to describe the study protocol in any detail.</p> <p>Whether a doctoral student can pursue participatory research may unfortunately depend on the individual supervisor, with only those already appreciative of participatory approaches willing to put in the work to supervise such a project. While I have been incredibly fortunate to find supervisors who value and respect this approach, for those without this support, participatory doctoral research may seem to present an insurmountable challenge.</p> <p>Furthermore, the difficulties of balancing meaningful participatory engagement with the assessment-based requirements of doctoral study may only become apparent when writing for publication or assessment. Questions around the ownership of ideas, measures, and methods developed collaboratively with stakeholders may make the student researcher fear potential plagiarism accusations, or that their thesis may be judged to contain insufficient 'original' work to justify the award of a PhD.</p> <p>While, in the case of research publication and dissemination, offers of co-authorship and/or clear acknowledgement of their contributions can help ensure that community collaborators and non-academic co-researchers feel a sense of shared ownership of the research outputs, it may be more complex to integrate this in the context of a PhD thesis. Klocker ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref26">13</reflink>]) suggests that considering participatory PhD research as two separate but overlapping bodies of work (<emph>our</emph> participatory research, alongside <emph>my</emph> PhD thesis) could help balance the collaborative/collective nature of participatory research with the individualism of a PhD. However, even in the individualistic thesis, it is still vital that collaborator contributions are acknowledged and the role of participatory research clearly explored.</p> <p>Similarly, careful consideration is required when balancing the desire to meaningfully 'give voice' to potentially vulnerable and marginalised communities with the need to still produce high-quality and feasible academic research.</p> <p>In my own research, a distinct tension has emerged between the expectations of mainstream academic autism research and the views and needs of autistic communities. When evaluating different standardised measures of 'autistic traits' for the online survey, we quickly found that many of these measures, including those the academic community would typically expect to see in an autism study, included language and content the RAG found inappropriate, and even distressing. This then necessitated complex discussions around how to navigate this conflict, ultimately leading to the inclusion of an imperfect standardised measure (to adhere to the expectations/requirements of the wider academic community) while presenting and framing this in a way that made its inclusion more acceptable to autistic participants.</p> <p>Balancing these ethical and scientific responsibilities was further complicated by my positionality as a researcher, advocate, and autistic person. Working closely with other autistic individuals as both researcher and community-member, as well as in the position of both researcher and student, required constant reflexivity to manage these roles and relationships.</p> <hd id="AN0182438366-5">Why bother conducting participatory research?</hd> <p>This is a question I'll admit I asked myself several times during the first year of my PhD.</p> <p>However, in addition to thinking of participatory research as a moral imperative with intrinsic value regardless of research outcomes, it is nevertheless important not to neglect the ways in which participatory approaches can materially benefit the research process.</p> <p>Collaboration with the RAG has been invaluable in shaping the aims, scope, and content of each stage of my research. For example, during the first RAG meeting, it was immediately noted that the survey questions I had developed to explore overwhelming experiences used implicitly negative language, prompts, and examples to describe these. Subconsciously, I had framed these questions to reflect my own experiences, with several RAG members reporting that their experiences were not always negative, but could include overwhelming experiences of joy or excitement which would likely be overlooked given the current framing. Had I not consulted with the RAG in this way, it would have been very easy to simply create and distribute the survey, unknowingly biasing participant responses, ignoring a potentially huge facet of this phenomenon, and inadvertently skewing and invalidating the data.</p> <p>Beyond such direct impact, collaborating with a RAG from the earliest stages of the project has also facilitated an additional dimension of accountability. As well as being held accountable by my supervisors, department, and funding body, both my research decisions and progress with the project have been, and continue to be, subject to the scrutiny of my RAG. As well as motivating progress, this has also pushed me to be more active and reflective in my decision making. While it is certainly inadvisable to try to fudge your way through a first-year report and accompanying viva, it is almost impossible to fumble through critical discussions and collaborative meetings with community stakeholders. This is especially true when working with autistic collaborators; we are not known for letting social niceties get in the way of our criticisms, nor are we likely to gloss over anything that is unclear or imprecise!</p> <p>While this did mean that meetings were often intense (and even somewhat overwhelming as an autistic individual!), it meant that no decisions were taken for granted. Every aspect of language, every phrasing and framing of a question, and every motivation behind each aspect of the research was discussed, evaluated, and criticised at length and in depth. While it may have been easier to forgo this often-laborious process, the research project would have been much poorer for it.</p> <p>However, it is of course not only practical scientific benefits that motivate us to conduct participatory research. By directly involving affected communities in research and ensuring our questions, methods, and outputs are driven by their needs and values, we can ensure our research is appropriate, timely, and able to respond to real-world issues.</p> <hd id="AN0182438366-6">Moving forward</hd> <p>While my own doctoral research is ongoing and will likely continue discovering further benefits and challenges of participatory approaches as it progresses, I will nevertheless take this opportunity to present some suggestions of how we might promote and support the use of participatory approaches in doctoral study and beyond.</p> <p>Firstly, as many of the challenges of conducting participatory PhD research ultimately stem from the fact that researchers, institutes, and organisations are often unfamiliar with these approaches, and struggle to align these with existing assessment structures, it is crucial that training in participatory research approaches continues to be developed and promoted, especially in fields where this is less established.</p> <p>Alongside this, academic institutions and doctoral training partnerships need to ensure their programmes have sufficient built-in flexibility to accommodate non-traditional or novel approaches to research. While the support of individual supervisors is invaluable for doctoral students pursuing participatory research, institutional change is still needed to ensure higher-level deadlines and assessment requirements do not serve to make participatory research prohibitively challenging for the doctoral student.</p> <p>Ultimately, increasing awareness and appreciation of participatory approaches and their benefits both across and beyond the fields of health and social care research will help to more firmly establish participatory methods within mainstream academic research practices, making these more available and feasible for researchers, both at the doctoral level and beyond.</p> <hd id="AN0182438366-7">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).</p> <ref id="AN0182438366-8"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref16" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Arnstein, S. R. 1969. " A Ladder Of Citizen Participation." Journal of the American Institute of Planners 35 (4): 216 – 224. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref22" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Botha, M. 2021. " Academic, Activist, or Advocate? Angry, Entangled, and Emerging: A Critical Reflection on Autism Knowledge Production." Frontiers in Psychology 12 : 12. https://<ulink href="http://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.727542">www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.727542</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref14" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Chown, N., J. Robinson, L. Beardon, J. Downing, L. Hughes, J. Leatherland, K. Fox, L. Hickman, and D. MacGregor. 2017. " Improving Research About Us, with Us: A Draft Framework for Inclusive Autism Research." Disability & Society 32 (5): 720 – 734. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2017.1320273.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref17" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Cornish, F., N. Breton, U. Moreno-Tabarez, J. Delgado, M. Rua, A. de-Graft Aikins, and D. Hodgetts. 2023. " Participatory Action Research." Nature Reviews Methods Primers 3 (1): Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43586-023-00214-1.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref15" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Costley, D. M., A. Emerson, D. Ropar, E. Sheppard, A. McCubbing, S. Campbell Bass, S. Dent, et al. 2022. " Trying to Solve the 'Worst situation' Together: Participatory Autism Research." Educational Action Research 31 (4): 691 – 708. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2021.2019075.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref4" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Dawson, M., and S. Fletcher-Watson. 2022. " When Autism Researchers Disregard Harms: A Commentary." Autism 26 (2): 564 – 566. https://doi.org/10.1177/13623613211031403.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref7" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> DePape, A.-M., and S. Lindsay. 2016. " Lived Experiences from the Perspective of Individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder: A Qualitative Meta-Synthesis." Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities 31 (1): 60 – 71. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088357615587504.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref24" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> De Poli, C., and J. Oyebode. 2023. " Research Ethics and Collaborative Research in Health and Social Care: Analysis of UK Research Ethics Policies, Scoping Review of the Literature, and Focus Group Study." Public Library of Science One 18 (12): e0296223. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0296223.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref1" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Emerson, E., R. Madden, J. Robertson, H. Graham, C. Hatton, and G. Llewellyn. 2009. Intellectual and Physical Disability, Social Mobility, Social Inclusion & Health. Lancaster, UK : Centre for Disability Research, Lancaster University. Accessed March 12, 2024. https://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/id/eprint/26403.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goodley, D., R. Lawthom, K. Liddiard, and K. Runswick-Cole. 2019. " Provocations for Critical Disability Studies." Disability & Society 34 (6): 972 – 997. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2019.1566889.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gowen, E., R. Taylor, T. Bleazard, A. Greenstein, P. Baimbridge, and D. Poole. 2019. " Guidelines for Conducting Research Studies with the Autism Community." Autism Policy & Practice 2 (1): 29 – 45.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Keating, C. T. 2021. " Participatory Autism Research: How Consultation Benefits Everyone." Frontiers in Psychology 12 : 713982. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.713982.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Klocker, N. 2012. " Doing Participatory Action Research and Doing a PhD: Words of Encouragement for Prospective Students." Journal of Geography in Higher Education 36 (1): 149 – 163. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098265.2011.589828.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pellicano, E., A. Dinsmore, T. Charman, and S. Molyneux. 2014. " Views on Researcher-Community Engagement in Autism Research in the United Kingdom: A Mixed-Methods Study." Public Library of Science One 9 (10): e109946. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0109946.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pellicano, E., and M. Stears. 2011. " Bridging Autism, Science and Society: Moving Toward an Ethically Informed Approach to Autism Research." Autism Research: Official Journal of the International Society for Autism Research 4 (4): 271 – 282. https://doi.org/10.1002/aur.201.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stevenson, F.A., W. Gibson, C. Pelletier, V. Chrysikou, and S. Park. 2015. " Reconsidering 'Ethics' and 'Quality' in Healthcare Research: The Case for an Iterative Ethical Paradigm." BMC Medical Ethics 16 (21). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-015-0004-1.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Ellen Taylor-Bower; Kate Plaisted-Grant and Stephanie Archer</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref26"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1458920
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Collaboration and Co-Creation in Autism Research: A Reflection on the Challenges and Benefits of Participatory Approaches in Doctoral Research
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ellen+Taylor-Bower%22">Ellen Taylor-Bower</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Kate+Plaisted-Grant%22">Kate Plaisted-Grant</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Stephanie+Archer%22">Stephanie Archer</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Educational+Action+Research%22"><i>Educational Action Research</i></searchLink>. 2025 33(1):183-189.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 7
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Evaluative
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Autism+Spectrum+Disorders%22">Autism Spectrum Disorders</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Participatory+Research%22">Participatory Research</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Research+Design%22">Research Design</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Research+Methodology%22">Research Methodology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Research+Projects%22">Research Projects</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Medical+Research%22">Medical Research</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Collaborative+Writing%22">Collaborative Writing</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Doctoral+Students%22">Doctoral Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Experiential+Learning%22">Experiential Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Performance+Based+Assessment%22">Performance Based Assessment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Social+Science+Research%22">Social Science Research</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Advisory+Committees%22">Advisory Committees</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Research+Committees%22">Research Committees</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/09650792.2024.2329195
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0965-0792<br />1747-5074
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Drawing upon ongoing research exploring lived experiences of sensory overload, meltdown, and shutdown in autism as a framework, this article reflects on the challenges and benefits of employing participatory methods in doctoral research. In particular, the process of establishing and working with a Research Advisory Group to co-create a multi-stage research project is evaluated and reflected upon. Applying participatory approaches such as this to doctoral research elicits practical challenges beyond those associated with either participatory research or doctoral study alone. In particular, strategic project planning and time management is vital, given the often labour-intensive and time-consuming nature of participatory methods and the time constraints of doctoral research. Similarly, questions around collaborative design and co-creation must be addressed when balancing participatory engagement with the assessment-based requirements of doctoral study. Additional challenges also arise when considering the more specific application of participatory methods to research with marginalised or vulnerable groups, including the need to consciously and critically evaluate researcher positionality, as well as questions of how to meaningfully 'give voice' to communities while still producing high-quality and feasible academic research. However, despite these challenges, the benefits of employing participatory approaches within health and social care doctoral research cannot be overstated, given the capacity for such research to engage with, and respond to, community needs, while promoting positive real-world impact. As such, this article concludes by presenting reflective suggestions for how the use of participatory approaches might be further encouraged and facilitated within the context of PhD research.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1458920
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1458920
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/09650792.2024.2329195
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 7
        StartPage: 183
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Autism Spectrum Disorders
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Participatory Research
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Research Design
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Research Methodology
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Research Projects
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Medical Research
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Collaborative Writing
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Doctoral Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Experiential Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Performance Based Assessment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Social Science Research
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Advisory Committees
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Research Committees
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Collaboration and Co-Creation in Autism Research: A Reflection on the Challenges and Benefits of Participatory Approaches in Doctoral Research
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Ellen Taylor-Bower
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Kate Plaisted-Grant
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Stephanie Archer
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0965-0792
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1747-5074
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 33
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Educational Action Research
              Type: main
ResultId 1