Introduction

Historically, notions of disability have been underpinned by administrative measures, diagnostic categories, and traditional practices within regulated systems. Knowledge generated within disciplines such as medical sociology, philosophy, and psychology have shaped our knowledge and understanding of disability and impairment (Richards and Clark, 2018). Categories of disability and normality emerged through these disciplines, resulting in the separation of what constitutes normal/abnormal, typical/atypical. This academic and medical knowledge has informed social perceptions and understanding, resulting in the separation, marginalisation, and ‘othering’ of people with disabilities. Thanks, in part, to political campaigns and academic activism, which called for greater equality and rights for the disabled, these perceptions and categorisations have been challenged, and a more critical, flexible, and interdisciplinary perspective of disability has emerged (Goodley, 2017). Disabled people’s experiences, views, and opinions have begun to be incorporated into policymaking, practice, research, and academic literature, engendering a more inclusive perspective, and one that values diversity and difference.

Notwithstanding these changes, there is clearly some way to go before inclusion and acceptance become commonplace, and it remains notable that the position of disabled young people within research and academic literature remains marginalised (Shakespeare and Watson, 1997; 2001). This absence is evident in the lack of first-person accounts from disabled young people themselves, researchers possibly preferring to talk on their behalf. What is at the root of this exclusion? Perhaps assumptions of vulnerability and incompetence, which are so engrained in our everyday thinking that we assume such voices are too difficult to hear or even understand (Boggis, 2018). Conceivably there has been a deficit in the skills required to gather non-normative voices, and to subsequently navigate the academic barriers to including them in published works.

However, excluding populations from research and favouring voices that are easily sought or heard is highly problematic as it fails to recognise diversity, and limits our soundscapes (Richards et al, 2015). Therefore, we strongly believe it is no longer acceptable to exclude voices simply because they pose challenges to us as researchers, and the methods we use.