ABSTRACT

This mixed methods study sought to build knowledge of inclusivity practices among 10 CI initiatives. Analyses across two strands of research revealed two distinct definitions of inclusivity: broad inclusivity, which seeks the participation of everyone; and, representative inclusivity, which seeks individuals affected by the problems being addressed. While several of the initiatives had improved inclusivity practices since adopting CI, only a few were found to be broadly inclusive and most acknowledged operating in intentionally exclusive ways at times. All of the initiatives valued representative inclusivity, but members reported struggling to achieve even minimal levels. Proponents of CI should continue to develop guides for practitioners to help ensure both forms of inclusivity.

摘要

这项混合方法研究试图在 10 个 CI 倡议中建立包容性实践知识。对两个研究方向的分析揭示了包容性的两个不同定义：广泛包容性，寻求每个人的参与；以及具有代表性的包容性，它寻求受正在解决的问题影响的个人。虽然自采用 CI 以来，一些举措改善了包容性实践，但只有少数被认为具有广泛的包容性，并且大多数人承认有时以故意排他的方式运作。所有倡议都重视具有代表性的包容性，但成员报告说很难达到最低水平。CI 的支持者应继续为从业者制定指南，以帮助确保这两种形式的包容性。