Autistic expertise: A critical reflection on the production of knowledge in autism studies
Autistic expertise: A critical reflection on the production of knowledge in autism studies
复制标题
DOI：
10.1177/1362361314525281
复制
发表时间：
2014-10-01
期刊：
影响因子：
5.2
通讯作者：
Milton, Damian E. M.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Milton, Damian E. M.
自闭症研究领域是一个备受争议的领域，其中充满了相互竞争的矛盾言论。在这一领域，自闭症患者关于他们自己在自闭症知识生产方面的专业知识的声音和主张是最近在争论中出现的，并且传统上是最少被关注的。在本文中，我利用哈里·柯林斯（Harry Collins）及其同事的理论，从一位被诊断为自闭症谱系的作者的角度，反思和概念化自闭症研究领域内对知识生产和专业知识的各种主张。自闭症患者缺乏社交性的观点是有问题的，有人认为自闭症患者不能用“社交大脑”或“零度认知同理心”等概念来很好地描述。然而，我随后提出，自闭症的社交性存在质的差异，并质疑这种差异在多大程度上具有生物或文化性质，以及在自闭症和非自闭症人群之间的互动中，双方可以获得多大程度的互动专业知识。总之，我认为自闭症患者常常不信任研究人员及其目标，并且经常被排除在知识生产的过程之外。这种情况会导致负面反馈螺旋式上升，进一步损害研究人员和自闭症患者之间互动专业知识的增长，并导致信任和沟通的崩溃，导致利益相关者群体之间的紧张关系加剧。因此，如果自闭症领域的社会研究要主张伦理和认识论的完整性，自闭症学者参与研究和改进参与方法可以被视为一项要求。
The field of autism studies is a highly disputed territory within which competing contradictory discourses abound. In this field, it is the voices and claims of autistic people regarding their own expertise in knowledge production concerning autism that is most recent in the debate, and traditionally the least attended to. In this article, I utilise the theories of Harry Collins and colleagues in order to reflect upon and conceptualise the various claims to knowledge production and expertise within the field of autism studies, from the perspective of an author who has been diagnosed as being on the autism spectrum. The notion that autistic people lack sociality is problematised, with the suggestion that autistic people are not well described by notions such as the 'social brain', or as possessing 'zero degrees of cognitive empathy'. I then argue, however, that there is a qualitative difference in autistic sociality, and question to what extent such differences are of a biological or cultural nature, and to what extent interactional expertise can be gained by both parties in interactions between autistic and non-autistic people. In conclusion, I argue that autistic people have often become distrustful of researchers and their aims, and are frequently frozen out of the processes of knowledge production. Such a context results in a negative feedback spiral with further damage to the growth of interactional expertise between researchers and autistic people, and a breakdown in trust and communication leading to an increase in tension between stakeholder groups. The involvement of autistic scholars in research and improvements in participatory methods can thus be seen as a requirement, if social research in the field of autism is to claim ethical and epistemological integrity.