Research into autism and mental health has traditionally associated poor mental health and autism as inevitably linked. Other possible explanations for mental health problems among autistic populations have received little attention. As evidenced by the minority disability movement, autism is increasingly being considered part of the identities of autistic people. Autistic individuals thus constitute an identity-based minority and may be exposed to excess social stress as a result of disadvantaged and stigmatized social status. The authors test the utility of the minority stress model as an explanation for the experience of mental health problems within a sample of high-functioning autistic individuals ( n = 111). Minority stressors including everyday discrimination, internalized stigma, and concealment significantly predicted poorer mental health, despite controlling for general stress exposure. These results indicate the potential utility of minority stress in explaining increased mental health problems in autistic populations. Implications for research and clinical applications are discussed.

There are many different perspectives for understanding autism. These perspectives may each convey different levels of stigma for autistic individuals. This qualitative study aimed to understand how autistic individuals make sense of their own autism and experience the stigma attached to autism. The study used critical grounded theory tools. Participants (N ¼ 20) discussed autism as central to their identity, and integral to who they are. While participants thought of autism as value neutral, they expressed how society confers negative meanings onto autism, and thus, them. The findings also indicate that different understandings of autism confer different levels of stigma. Participants expressed constant exposure to stigma and managed this stigma in different ways. Such methods included reframing to more positive understandings of autism, the reclamation of language, and using concealment and disclosure strategically. The implications of these findings are discussed further in the article.

In response to Vivanti’s ‘Ask The Editor…’ paper [Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 50(2), 691–693], we argue that the use of language in autism research has material consequences for autistic people including stigmatisation, dehumanisation, and violence. Further, that the debate in the use of person-first language versus identity-first language should centre first and foremost on the needs, autonomy, and rights of autistic people, so in to preserve their rights to self-determination. Lastly, we provide directions for future research.

No abstract

No abstract

There has been a focus on autistic-led and participatory research in autism research, but minimal discussion about whether the field is hospitable to autistic involvement. While the focus on participatory and/or autistic-led research is abundantly welcome, a wider conversation should also happen about how autistic people are treated in the process of knowledge creation. As such, I present a critical reflection on my experiences of academia as an autistic autism researcher. I open by questioning whether I am an academic, an activist, or an advocate before discussing my journey through academia, and my exposure to dehumanizing, objectifying, and violent accounts of autism. I highlight how the construction of objectivity has resulted in a failure to question the validity of these dehumanizing accounts of autism, which are regarded as “scientifically-sound” by virtue of their perceived “objectivity.” Furthermore, I discuss how the idea of objectivity is used to side-line autistic expertise in disingenuous ways, especially when this knowledge challenges the status-quo. Despite claiming to be value-free, these dehumanizing accounts of autism embody social and cultural values, with a complete lack of transparency or acknowledgment. I then discuss how these dehumanizing accounts and theories—entangled in values—reverberate into autistic people's lives and come to be ways of constituting us. Following this, I discuss the rationality of the anger autistic people feel when encountering these accounts, and instead of urging people to distance themselves from these emotions, I discuss the value of “leaning-in” as a radical act of dissent in the face of research-based violence. I then make a call to action urging all those who write or speak about autism to engage reflexively with how their values shape their understanding and construction of autistic people. Lastly, I conclude by answering my opening question: I have emerged as an advocate, activist, and academic. For me, belonging to the autistic community, acknowledging our marginalization, and recognizing our suffering within society means that hope for a better and just future has always, and will always underpin my work.

No abstract

The neurodiversity movement is a social movement that emerged among autistic self‐advocates. It has since spread and has been joined by many with diagnoses of attention‐deficit/hyperactivity disorder, dyslexia, and developmental coordination disorder among others. By reconceptualizing neurodiversity as part of biodiversity, neurodiversity proponents emphasize the need to develop an ‘ecological’ society that supports the conservation of neurological minorities through the construction of ecological niches—that is, making space for all. This is an alternative to the drive to eliminate diversity through attempts to ‘treat’ or ‘cure’ neurodivergence. So far, neurodiversity theory has not been formally adapted for psychotherapeutic frameworks, and it is not the role of the therapist to make systemic changes to societal organization. Still, there is room for fruitfully drawing on a neurodiversity perspective for therapists working with neurodivergent people in clinical settings. Here, we draw on the example of autism and synthesize three key themes to propose the concept of neurodivergence‐informed therapy. First, the reconceptualization of dysfunction as relational rather than individual. Second, the importance of neurodivergence acceptance and pride, and disability community and culture to emancipate neurodivergent people from neuro‐normativity. Third, the need for therapists to cultivate a relational epistemic humility regarding different experiences of neurodivergence and disablement.