"Autism research is in crisis": A mixed method study of researcher's constructions of autistic people and autism research.
"Autism research is in crisis": A mixed method study of researcher's constructions of autistic people and autism research.
复制标题
DOI：
10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1050897
复制
发表时间：
2022
影响因子：
3.8
通讯作者：
Cage, Eilidh
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Botha, Monique;Cage, Eilidh
虽然并非所有的自闭症研究都是体能歧视，但自闭症研究人员也可能存在体能歧视，包括用非人类的术语来谈论自闭症患者（非人化），将自闭症患者视为物体（客观化），以及做出将自闭症患者与非自闭症患者区别开来并降低地位的其他言论（污名化）。这项混合方法研究旨在调查自闭症研究人员如何构建自闭症人群和自闭症研究，并调查将自闭症人群更多地纳入研究中是否与自闭症人群叙述中较低的体能歧视有关。我们对自闭症研究人员（N = 195）进行了一项调查，询问了五个有关自闭症和自闭症研究的开放式问题，以及人口统计、职业长度、与自闭症患者的接触（家庭和非家庭）以及研究人员让自闭症患者参与研究的程度。我们使用内容分析对自闭症研究人员使用的叙述和能力歧视的线索（非人化、客观化和污名化）进行分类。然后，我们使用二元逻辑回归来确定叙事或自闭症患者的更高包容性是否会预测更少的能力歧视线索，控制职业长度和与自闭症患者的联系。与采用社会模型或中立的具体化叙述相比，使用自闭症的医学叙述可以预测出现体能歧视线索的更高几率。在控制与自闭症患者的其他接触和职业长度的同时，更多地将自闭症患者纳入研究中可以预测体能歧视线索的几率显着降低。接下来，我们使用反思性主题分析来分析研究者对自闭症人群和自闭症研究的看法。叙述反映了该领域的核心意识形态分歧，例如研究人员是否认为自闭症是美好生活的内在障碍，以及研究人员是否优先考虑解决“自闭症”的研究而不是自闭症患者融入社会的障碍。工具性（客观化的一种形式）是研究人员是否认为一个人具有社会价值（重点围绕智力和独立性）的关键。最后，语言似乎成为暴力正常化的工具。研究人员在谈论预防或根除自闭症时依赖于“自闭症”这一模糊概念，可能是因为它听起来比谈论预防“自闭症患者”更容易接受，尽管自闭症只存在于自闭症患者的背景下。
While 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). This 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. Using 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.