Reconciling communication repertoires: navigating interactions involving persons with severe/profound intellectual disability, a classic grounded theory study

Abstract

BackgroundA rights‐based agenda, informed by the UNCRPD, that advocates person‐centredness, inclusion, empowerment and self‐determination is shaping service provision to people with intellectual disability (ID). Listening to their perspectives is fundamental to meeting these goals. However, communication with people with severe/profound ID is challenging and difficult. Therefore, this study aims to generate a theory that explains how people communicate with and understand each other in these interactions.MethodsClassic grounded theory (CGT) methodology was used as it recognises that knowledge can be captured rather than interpreted. According to CGT, capturing rather than interpreting experiences strengthens findings, particularly in relation to participants with severe/profound ID. Concurrent theoretical sampling, data collection and analysis were undertaken. Twenty‐two individuals participated in the study: 3 people with severe/profound ID and 19 people with whom they interact. Data were collected over a 9‐month period and involved video recordings, field notes, individual and group interviews. Data were analysed using CGT methods of coding, constant comparison and memoing.ResultsThe Theory of Reconciling Communication Repertoires was generated. Nurturing a sense of belonging emerged as the main concern and core category that is resolved by reconciling communication repertoires. A communication repertoire refers to the cache of communication skills a person has available to them. To reconcile repertoires is to harmonise or make them compatible with each other in order to communicate. Interactions are navigated through five stages: motivation to interact, connection establishment, reciprocally engaging, navigating understanding and confusion resolution.ConclusionsThe Theory of Reconciling Communication Repertoires explains how interactions involving people with severe/profound ID are navigated. While this is a substantive rather than formal theory, it has the potential to inform practice, policy, management, education and research as it outlines how communication with people with severe/profound ID can take place to design, inform and plan person‐centred care.