“Autism research is in crisis”: A mixed method study of researcher’s constructions of autistic people and autism research

IntroductionWhile not all autism research is ableism, autism researchers can be ableist, including by talking about autistic people in sub-human terms (dehumanization), treating autistic people like objects (objectification), and making othering statements which set autistic people apart from non-au...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Monique Botha, Eilidh Cage
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Frontiers Media S.A. 2022-11-01
Series:Frontiers in Psychology
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1050897/full
_version_ 1811307016838184960
author Monique Botha
Eilidh Cage
author_facet Monique Botha
Eilidh Cage
author_sort Monique Botha
collection DOAJ
description IntroductionWhile not all autism research is ableism, autism researchers can be ableist, including by talking about autistic people in sub-human terms (dehumanization), treating autistic people like objects (objectification), and making othering statements which set autistic people apart from non-autistic people, and below in status (stigmatization).MethodThis mixed-method study aimed to investigate how autism researchers construct autistic people and autism research, and to investigate whether including autistic people more in research relates to lower ableism in narratives about autistic people. We used a survey with autism researchers (N = 195) asking five open-ended questions about autism and autism research, as well as demographics, career length, contact with autistic people (familial and non-familial) and degree to which researchers involve autistic people in their research. We used content analysis to categorize narratives used by autism researchers and cues for ableism (dehumanization, objectification, and stigmatization). We then used binary-logistic regression to identify whether narrative or higher inclusion of autistic people predicted fewer ableist cues, controlling for career length and connections to autistic people.Results and discussionUsing medicalized narratives of autism predicted higher odds of ableist cues compared to employing social model or neutral embodiment narratives. Greater inclusion of autistic people in research predicted significantly lower odds of ableist cues, while controlling for other contact with autistic people and career length. Next, we used reflexive thematic analysis to analyze researcher’s perceptions of autistic people and autism research. Narratives reflected core ideological disagreements of the field, such as whether researchers consider autism to be an intrinsic barrier to a good life, and whether researchers prioritize research which tackles “autism” versus barriers to societal inclusion for autistic people. Instrumentality (a form of objectification) was key to whether researchers considered a person to have social value with emphasis revolving around intellectual ability and independence. Lastly, language seemed to act as a tool of normalization of violence. Researchers relied on an amorphous idea of “autism” when talking about prevention or eradication, potentially because it sounds more palatable than talking about preventing “autistic people,” despite autism only existing within the context of autistic people.
first_indexed 2024-04-13T08:57:02Z
format Article
id doaj.art-d6aa56f4e1864126962d739b33e6679b
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 1664-1078
language English
last_indexed 2024-04-13T08:57:02Z
publishDate 2022-11-01
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format Article
series Frontiers in Psychology
spelling doaj.art-d6aa56f4e1864126962d739b33e6679b2022-12-22T02:53:16ZengFrontiers Media S.A.Frontiers in Psychology1664-10782022-11-011310.3389/fpsyg.2022.10508971050897“Autism research is in crisis”: A mixed method study of researcher’s constructions of autistic people and autism researchMonique BothaEilidh CageIntroductionWhile not all autism research is ableism, autism researchers can be ableist, including by talking about autistic people in sub-human terms (dehumanization), treating autistic people like objects (objectification), and making othering statements which set autistic people apart from non-autistic people, and below in status (stigmatization).MethodThis mixed-method study aimed to investigate how autism researchers construct autistic people and autism research, and to investigate whether including autistic people more in research relates to lower ableism in narratives about autistic people. We used a survey with autism researchers (N = 195) asking five open-ended questions about autism and autism research, as well as demographics, career length, contact with autistic people (familial and non-familial) and degree to which researchers involve autistic people in their research. We used content analysis to categorize narratives used by autism researchers and cues for ableism (dehumanization, objectification, and stigmatization). We then used binary-logistic regression to identify whether narrative or higher inclusion of autistic people predicted fewer ableist cues, controlling for career length and connections to autistic people.Results and discussionUsing medicalized narratives of autism predicted higher odds of ableist cues compared to employing social model or neutral embodiment narratives. Greater inclusion of autistic people in research predicted significantly lower odds of ableist cues, while controlling for other contact with autistic people and career length. Next, we used reflexive thematic analysis to analyze researcher’s perceptions of autistic people and autism research. Narratives reflected core ideological disagreements of the field, such as whether researchers consider autism to be an intrinsic barrier to a good life, and whether researchers prioritize research which tackles “autism” versus barriers to societal inclusion for autistic people. Instrumentality (a form of objectification) was key to whether researchers considered a person to have social value with emphasis revolving around intellectual ability and independence. Lastly, language seemed to act as a tool of normalization of violence. Researchers relied on an amorphous idea of “autism” when talking about prevention or eradication, potentially because it sounds more palatable than talking about preventing “autistic people,” despite autism only existing within the context of autistic people.https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1050897/fullautismdehumanizationobjectificationstigmaparticipatory research
spellingShingle Monique Botha
Eilidh Cage
“Autism research is in crisis”: A mixed method study of researcher’s constructions of autistic people and autism research
Frontiers in Psychology
autism
dehumanization
objectification
stigma
participatory research
title “Autism research is in crisis”: A mixed method study of researcher’s constructions of autistic people and autism research
title_full “Autism research is in crisis”: A mixed method study of researcher’s constructions of autistic people and autism research
title_fullStr “Autism research is in crisis”: A mixed method study of researcher’s constructions of autistic people and autism research
title_full_unstemmed “Autism research is in crisis”: A mixed method study of researcher’s constructions of autistic people and autism research
title_short “Autism research is in crisis”: A mixed method study of researcher’s constructions of autistic people and autism research
title_sort autism research is in crisis a mixed method study of researcher s constructions of autistic people and autism research
topic autism
dehumanization
objectification
stigma
participatory research
url https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1050897/full
work_keys_str_mv AT moniquebotha autismresearchisincrisisamixedmethodstudyofresearchersconstructionsofautisticpeopleandautismresearch
AT eilidhcage autismresearchisincrisisamixedmethodstudyofresearchersconstructionsofautisticpeopleandautismresearch