‘The Ball of Cooperation Rolls on’: Some Personal Reflections on My Experiences as a Researcher

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This article is a valuable contribution to inclusive research.

Firstly, we rarely have the opportunity to read articles like this in academic journals: written in the first person by a co-researcher. This is a remarkable first element.

Secondly, there are some very interesting insights. Reading this article can be very useful for other researchers (not only junior researchers) and co-researchers. The main author dwells on important methodological issues (e.g. reflexivity) and insists on the added value of her work.

Finally, I would like to emphasise that the article is accessible and therefore can be read by other co-researchers.

I therefore believe that the article should be published. However, the author needs to revise the introductory section, perhaps with the help of the other authors of the article. Specifically, the paragraph where she mentions some of the problems that persist in inclusive research. These should be more clearly defined and supported by other sources. Therefore, I suggest that you make the ideas more concrete (e.g. what you mean by lack of support or unreliable funding) and refer to other articles, as you did in the previous paragraphs, when introducing what you have learned about inclusive research.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you for your kind words about our paper. I specially appreciate your remark about its relevance and accessibility for fellow co-researchers. I also want to thank you for pointing out the need for revision on the introductory section. We took this to heart and revised the third paragraph by making our examples more concrete and adding references to other articles. In the text, all revised sections are marked red.

Reviewer 2 Report

Overall, I really enjoyed the manuscript and thought it made an important contribution to research in disability studies from the vantage point of a co-researcher’s experience.  I could imagine sharing this article with students and junior colleagues to help them identify useful practices and learnings from co-researchers. I was left with several questions/comments and wondered if related points or responses could be included in the next version. As well, the early part of the manuscript especially needs some editorial work. I did wonder what the significance of the title was and whether this could be more clearly identified in the manuscript.

The section on reflection was useful and important, but I was left with the question of whether the researcher had reflected on the ways in which they could contribute and areas in which they could not contribute.  They identified as a man, as someone with autism, as someone who has experiences living in group or institutional settings, as someone with experience contributing to research, as a Christian.... How do those identities shape what lived experiences they may be ‘expert’ in and what they may not be able to contribute to (eg being a woman, a blind person, a Muslim…).  What is their role (and success) in reaching out to other communities to learn from them to provide other advice and suggestions?  What implications does this have for research teams – do they need to think about bringing in many lived experience co-researchers in order to reflect the range of possible experiences?  How can research teams address this complexity?

I noticed a number of small editorial issues including:

Section 1: Introduction – has a significant amount of passive voice. Given the article is about someone’s experiences, the use of passive voice in this section weakens the strength of the overall arguments and could be easily revised into more active voice.

Footnote 1 includes an incomplete sentence

Line 49 – is the word via extra or the name of the agency?

Line 64-5 – incomplete sentence

Line 88  -- incomplete sentence

Line 137 – why does working at a university (or in a university space??) provide participants reassurance?

See above

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you for your kind words about our paper and the important questions and remarks. We revised our paper accordingly, all revised sections are marked red.

• On page 2 we explained our title.
• We adapted our text in correspondence to the various small editorial issues that you raised (all changes are marked in red): on pages 2, 4 and 5.
• After some deliberation, we chose not to change the use of the passive voice in the introduction. Although we acknowledge the fact that this tone is different from the rest of the paper, we feel this is appropriate for how we want to bring our message.

You also ask some questions about my reflection on my involvement in projects and my experiential expertise. These are difficult questions to think about but also interesting. I feel myself that I am primarily an experiential expert in the area of having a disability and receiving professional care. I feel less an expert in other topics such as was the case in the research on sexuality. I therefore I chose to take the role of researcher more than expert in that project. I think for teams it's very important to think and talk about each person’s expertise. So that teams can make choices about who they involve in projects and in what role. 

Reviewer 3 Report

This is an excellent piece describing very important developments in inclusive research. I genuinely appreciated the variety of individual first person narratives included in the paper. The only suggestion I would make is that the paper should engage more with the other research literature currently available. The second paragraph after the introduction in which a variety of sources are mentioned but not discussed in detail is a fine start. I want to be sure to locate this piece carefully in the current secondary literature. Please include more of that type of discussion from the second paragraph. Good piece!

Very well written.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you for the kind words about our paper and your suggestion to engage more with other research literature. We took this to heart and adapted especially the third paragraph of the introduction. Here, we not only gave more concrete examples but also added references to other articles. In the text, all revised sections are marked red.