Neurodiversity, epistemic injustice, and the good human life

Chapman, Robert; Carel, Havi

doi:10.1111/josp.12456

Cited by 69 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 72 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It would be unfortunate if this were the only frame of reference for areas of cognitive science less directly concerned with neurodiversity. Meanwhile, the humanities and social sciences have been applying the neurodiversity paradigm by rejecting oppressive medical models of disability in favor of social models * which locate disability in the relationship between a person and their environment rather than being inherent to the person alone (Betts et al, in press;Chapman & Carel, 2022;Creechan, 2022;Kapp, 2013;Milton, 2012;Oliver, 1983;Oliver, 2013;Stenning & Rosqvist, 2021).…”

Section: Why Has Cognitive Science Had Poor Engagement With Neurodive...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Conducting research about a marginalized group without their inclusion is epistemic injustice * (Byskov, 2021;Fricker, 2007). Neurodivergent people regularly face epistemic injustice (Catala et al, 2021;Chapman & Carel, 2022). For example, even when tasks are modified to allow for cultural differences, similar calls for accommodation of neurodivergence are ignored (Hillary, 2020).…”

Section: Why Is It Wrong That Cognitive Science Has Not Taken Neurodi...mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

From Puzzle to Progress: How engaging with Neurodiversity can improve Cognitive Science

Sulik¹,

Manalili²,

Pearson³

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In cognitive science, there is a tacit norm that phenomena such as cultural variation or synaesthesia are worthy examples of cognitive diversity that contribute to a better understanding of cognition, but that other forms of cognitive diversity (e.g. autism, ADHD and dyslexia) are primarily interesting only as examples of deficit, dysfunction, or impairment. This status quo is dehumanizing and holds back much-needed research. In contrast, the Neurodiversity Paradigm argues that such experiences are not necessarily deficits, but rather are natural reflections of biodiversity. Here we propose that neurodiversity is an important topic for future research in cognitive science. We discuss why cognitive science has thus far failed to engage with neurodiversity, why this gap presents both ethical and scientific challenges for the field and, crucially, why cognitive science will produce better theories of human cognition if the field engages with neurodiversity in the same way that it values other forms of cognitive diversity. Doing so will not only empower marginalized researchers but will also present an opportunity for cognitive science to benefit from the unique contributions of neurodivergent researchers and communities.

show abstract

Section: Why Has Cognitive Science Had Poor Engagement With Neurodive...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Why Is It Wrong That Cognitive Science Has Not Taken Neurodi...mentioning

confidence: 99%

From Puzzle to Progress: How engaging with Neurodiversity can improve Cognitive Science

Sulik¹,

Manalili²,

Pearson³

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Autobiographical accounts can also help address some of the forms of epistemic injustice autistic people are often subject to (Chapman & Carel, 2022;Dinishak, 2021). More broadly, we think the primary benefit of autobiographical accounts is in shifting perspectives of non-autistic researchers to consider and develop alternative explanations of the behaviors and experiences associated with being autistic.…”

Section: Integrating Autistic Perspectives Into Autism Science: a Rol...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrating autistic perspectives into autism science: A role for autistic autobiographies

Dinishak

Akhtar

2022

Autism

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Autism science faces several conceptual and ethical challenges. These include fundamental issues such as how to characterize autism and the fact that research findings and how they are interpreted sometimes contribute to negative perceptions of autistic people. We argue that some of these challenges can be addressed by centering the perspectives of autistic people and focus on one way to accomplish this: having non-autistic researchers critically engage with personal accounts of autistic experience. We discuss some of the advantages and challenges of engaging with these accounts and argue that they can play a role in the reform of autism science. Lay abstract Autism science faces challenges in how to think about autism and what questions to focus on, and sometimes contributes to stigma against autistic people. We examine one way that non-autistic researchers may start to combat these challenges: by reading and reflecting on autistic people’s descriptions of their personal experiences (e.g. autobiographies) of what it is like to be autistic. In this article, we review some of the advantages and challenges of this approach and how it may help combat some of the challenges currently facing autism science by focusing studies on the questions autistic people find most important, counteracting stereotypes, and increasing understanding of autistic experiences.

show abstract

“…However, there are also aspects of open research methods that could cause concern among many autistic people. In particular, data sharing may alarm a community that has been historically disenfranchised from autism research (Botha, 2021; Chapman & Carel, 2022). This is exacerbated by the fact that many important forms of data for autism research, such as video footage of assessments, is very risky to share openly – and indeed may be actively prevented by legislation in some parts of the world (e.g.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%