Background and Aims: Inclusive research ethics ensure that people with disabilities are recognised as equal partners in research. Frameworks like the CRPD and BERA highlight accessibility, autonomy, and participation, yet little is known about how these values are reflected in national ethics codes, especially in non‐Western contexts. In Saudi Arabia, where universities regulate academic research, this study examines how ethics codes from 22 public universities address disability inclusion and align with CRPD and BERA standards. Methods: A qualitative document analysis was conducted, assessing ethics policies against seven deductive indicators derived from the CRPD and BERA, including the recognition of disability, adapted consent procedures, support for communication and inclusive participation. Thematic analysis was also used to identify patterns of medicalised language, paternalism and procedural ambiguity. Findings: Most ethics codes used vague categories such as ‘vulnerable groups’ without offering practical guidance on accessibility, supported decision‐making or participatory research. None of the reviewed codes referenced the CRPD, and alignment with BERA standards was limited. These findings reveal a discursive and structural disconnect between international disability rights principles and local research governance. Conclusion: Inclusive ethics require more than general values. They demand concrete mechanisms for accessibility, participation and coproduction. The study recommends embedding CRPD‐aligned practices into university ethics policies, strengthening ethics committee training and involving people with disabilities in ethical review processes.
Loading....