Journal of intellectual & developmental disability · 2025
Inclusion of people with intellectual disability in the decision-making and governance of disability and community organisations.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Curryer Bernadette, Donelly Michelle, Roots Kim, Spencer Margaret, Harding Will, Sneath Katrina
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The value of people with disability being involved in the decision-making and governance of community organisations is increasingly being recognised. This paper reports on research that aims to understand governance models that promote the recruitment, decision-making, and leadership of people with intellectual disability.
METHOD: A descriptive phenomenological analysis of 27 semi-structured interviews was conducted. The participants were board members with intellectual disability (n = 5), board members with a disability other than intellectual (n = 6), board members without disability (n = 4), senior management staff (n = 8), and board support people (n = 4).
RESULTS: Five themes emerged from the data. These themes reflect the impact of inclusion, pathways of skill development, accessibility requirements, the provision of skilled support, and the concerns that create a barrier to inclusion.
CONCLUSION: Inclusive governance appears to work best when organisations value and commit to inclusion, setting up skill development pathways to governance roles, with accessible practices and individualised support.
METHOD: A descriptive phenomenological analysis of 27 semi-structured interviews was conducted. The participants were board members with intellectual disability (n = 5), board members with a disability other than intellectual (n = 6), board members without disability (n = 4), senior management staff (n = 8), and board support people (n = 4).
RESULTS: Five themes emerged from the data. These themes reflect the impact of inclusion, pathways of skill development, accessibility requirements, the provision of skilled support, and the concerns that create a barrier to inclusion.
CONCLUSION: Inclusive governance appears to work best when organisations value and commit to inclusion, setting up skill development pathways to governance roles, with accessible practices and individualised support.