Values for community research and action: do we agree where they guide us?

Winett et al. (1991) wrote a think-piece, not an experiment.

They asked if behavior analysts doing community programs for people with intellectual disability really share the same values.

The paper lists ideals like "let participants help pick the research questions" and then shows where daily practice breaks those ideals.

The authors found a gap. Nice participatory values crash into tight budgets, staff shortages, and consent procedures that shut out people with limited speech.

In 1991, almost no one had solved this clash, so the paper ends with a warning: without fixes, community programs will keep saying one thing and doing another.

Shogren (2024) is the direct sequel. That update says "stop talking about barriers and start sharing power." It keeps the same diagnosis—people with ID still get left out—but gives concrete moves like paying them as co-researchers.

Lawer et al. (2009) hands us the planning tool Winett et al. (1991) wished for. Their support-needs model turns "include the person" into a form you can score: how much help, where, and for how long.

Mitter et al. (2019) shows one reason the 1991 barriers linger. Families feel stigma in community spaces, so they may avoid research meetings. The review adds culture to the 1991 checklist of things that block true participation.

You can close the 1991 gap today. Use R et al.’s support-needs form to decide what help each participant needs to join a meeting. Add Shogren (2024)’s rule: budget money for that help up front. Finally, screen for stigma like Natasha et al. suggest so families feel safe saying yes. Three steps turn old ideals into a session that actually includes your clients.