Historically, individuals who use augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) have been underrepresented and marginalized in research, particularly in studies that rely on spoken or written language as the primary mode of communication. Despite increasing calls for inclusive research practices, AAC users may be excluded from qualitative research due to perceived methodological and logistical challenges. As a result, their perspectives and lived experiences are often missing from the evidence base that informs policy, practice, and service delivery.
In alignment with the conference theme of innovation, inclusion, and advocacy, this presentation will share findings from a scoping review of qualitative studies conducted over the past decade that included AAC users as participants. The goal of this review was to systematically examine how researchers have supported the communication needs of AAC users during study recruitment, data collection, and data analysis. Inspiration for this analysis was modified from the framework proposed by Walsh et al. (2024). By synthesizing these methodological approaches, we aim to identify best practices and generate recommendations that will center AAC users in future research.
Our team followed established guidelines for conducting scoping reviews, including a systematic search of multiple databases using key terms related to AAC, qualitative research, and participant inclusion. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they were published between 2015 and 2025, employed qualitative methods, and included at least one participant who used AAC. We excluded studies focused solely on the perspectives of caregivers, professionals, or other stakeholders unless AAC users themselves were also directly involved as participants.
Preliminary findings from our review indicate that while the inclusion of AAC users in qualitative research is increasing, there remains considerable variability in the strategies used to support their participation. Some studies demonstrated innovative and participant-centered approaches, such as flexible interview formats, the use of multimodal data collection tools, collaborative analysis with AAC users, and prolonged engagement to build rapport and support communication. However, other studies lacked sufficient detail about how participants were supported, making it difficult to determine whether meaningful inclusion occurred. Across studies, there were common barriers reported by researchers, including challenges related to communication partner support, technology access, and the need for additional time and resources.
From our analysis, emerging best practices and recommendations noted include: (1) building research teams with expertise in AAC; (2) offering flexible, participant-driven communication options; (3) using visual and aided communication supports; (4) allowing extended time for response and engagement; (5) partnering with AAC users in the design and implementation of studies; and (6) clearly reporting accommodations in published work to promote transparency and replication.
By identifying and disseminating these practices, our goal is to advocate for the inclusion of AAC users in the research process and to empower researchers with the tools and knowledge needed to engage this population meaningfully. Including AAC users in qualitative research not only upholds ethical principles of equity and respect, but also enriches our understanding of their experiences, needs, and insights.
This presentation will be relevant to researchers, clinicians, and educators who are committed to inclusive research practices and who seek to elevate the voices of individuals who use AAC. Attendees will leave with concrete strategies for designing accessible studies, as well as a deeper appreciation of the importance of participatory and inclusive research methodologies. Together, we can move toward a more equitable research landscape in which all voices—regardless of how they are expressed—are heard and valued.
