The Equity Agenda in Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities Research.

Johnson (2023) wrote a think-piece, not an experiment. The paper asks the IDD research world to place racial justice at the center of every study.

It names two hidden forces: racialization and whiteness. The author argues we must study how these forces shape services, data, and funding choices.

There is no data set or p-value. The finding is a warning: if we keep treating equity as a side note, IDD science will keep serving some groups far better than others.

The paper ends with a call for critical praxis—constant reflection plus action—to break this cycle.

Emerson et al. (2023) and Zwiya et al. (2023) sound almost identical. All three 2023 papers shout the same message: move from white-dominant models to equity-led, community-engaged work.

Bogenschutz et al. (2024) picks up the baton and turns it into six concrete research goals for social inclusion, showing the equity agenda is already growing legs.

Hamama et al. (2021) looks like a contradiction at first. That paper urges the field to focus on precise terms and evidence-based practice, not race. Read side-by-side, the older paper shows where the field was; Robinson shows where it must go next. The two pieces are stages, not enemies.

As a BCBA you write goals, pick assessments, and train staff. Robinson says ask who is missing from your data and why. Check if your picture cards, parent forms, or reinforcers carry hidden cultural bias. Start small: add a community advisor with IDD to your next study team, or swap one assessment for a culturally-adapted version. These tiny moves push the whole field toward equity.