On Language and the Context of Discovery for Research in Intellectual and Developmental Disability-An Introduction to a Special Issue on Equity in IDD Research.

03Original abstract

In my inaugural editorial, I stated that the strength and the value of the AJIDD legacy is perhaps most notable in its continuity; the continuity provides a transparent and, at times, unsubtle as well as uncomfortable look at our past that helps point toward the future by relying on the cumulative nature of scientific activity and those engaged in it. In this sense, my primary goal and that of our editorial team are to be good scientific stewards. At the core of our mission is the discovery of generalizable knowledge about the condition of intellectual disability including its correlates and consequences. I have framed many of the challenges as ‘technical’—broadly and specifically in regard to conceptual and analytical issues including measurement of independent and dependent variables, of moderators and mediators, of bio-psycho-social processes, etc., but there remain another class of challenges I characterize as “collective action.”Collective action problems are characterized broadly regarding the social, ethical, and political context of discovery and dissemination by myriad issues revolving around “trade offs” including what questions are asked or not asked, and who is included in the conversations leading to what is considered important for science and society. Germane to the current special issue—equity and inclusion in IDD research—are a set of issues and questions about who is included in the research process and what historical and contemporary assumptions underlying our approaches may or may not be constraining discovery and dissemination in ways we may not fully be aware of. So, an urgent reminder, as we go about our technical business of pursuing grants, executing studies, writing up results, and talking with each other scientifically—we need to be aware of our collective business including the who and the why it matters.Writing in a different context, Baldwin makes a point about the role of language—and that language in revealing the speaker, is meant to define the other. We are in a field in which our language looms large in defining the other—in our not-too-distant past—authoritative texts provided expert language grounded in the prevailing science of the day from which principles were derived and best practices delivered on how to set up model colonies to deal with the problem of the mental defective.In this special issue on equity and inclusion in research in IDD I adopted a long-standing approach used by the journal Behavioral and Brain Sciences in which a target article is followed by open peer commentaries and then a rejoinder by the target-article authors. The BBS format has been intellectually important for me as a scientist and scholar. To read in an open format high-level commentaries offering different perspectives revealing shared and nonshared assumptions helps keep me epistemically humble. At the same time, I am energized by a commitment to epistemology through empiricism in the hope that it will continue to lead us collectively to deeper understanding and, if we are wise about it, more inclusive informed action.

American journal on intellectual and developmental disabilities, 2023 · doi:10.1352/1944-7558-128.5.349