Participants’ Perspectives Of A Participatory Autism Research Project

Including autistic people in autism research is crucial for several reasons. It ensures that research questions and methodologies are relevant to the lived experiences of autistic individuals, potentially leading to more meaningful outcomes.

Autistic involvement can enhance the quality and authenticity of data collected, as participants may feel more comfortable sharing with researchers who understand their experiences.

This approach also empowers the autistic community, giving them a voice in shaping the research that affects their lives.

Moreover, it can lead to new insights and perspectives that non-autistic researchers might overlook, ultimately contributing to a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of autism.

A researcher and participant sat opposite each other. The researcher is interviewing the participant and writing on her clipboard.
Pellicano, E., Lawson, W., Hall, G., Mahony, J., Lilley, R., Heyworth, M., Clapham, H., & Yudell, M. (2022). “I Knew She'd Get It, and Get Me”: Participants' Perspectives of a Participatory Autism Research Project. Autism in Adulthood4(2), 120-129. https://doi.org/10.1089/aut.2021.0039

Key Points

  1. The study explored participants’ perspectives on a participatory autism research project involving late-diagnosed autistic adults.
  2. Participants reported overwhelmingly positive experiences, feeling supported and understood by autistic researchers.
  3. Sharing life stories was emotionally draining but also empowering and healing for many participants.
  4. The participatory approach enhanced the quality of research and participants’ willingness to share authentic experiences.
  5. Limitations include potential selection bias and the specific nature of oral history methodology.
  6. The research highlights the importance of involving autistic researchers in autism studies to bridge the epistemological divide.

Rationale

This study addresses a significant gap in autism research by examining the impact of participatory approaches on study participants themselves.

While previous research has demonstrated the benefits of community involvement for researchers and community partners (Brett et al., 2014; Concannon et al., 2014), little is known about how participatory methods affect those being studied, particularly in autism research.

By focusing on late-diagnosed autistic adults, an underserved group in autism research (Lai & Baron-Cohen, 2015), this study aims to understand the value of coproduced research from the perspective of participants.

This approach aligns with calls for increased autistic involvement in research (den Houting, 2019; Milton et al., 2014) and addresses concerns about the disconnect between autism research and its real-world impact (Pellicano et al., 2014).

Method

The study employed a qualitative approach using semi-structured interviews. Participants who had previously taken part in the Hidden Histories project, an oral history study of late-diagnosed autistic adults, were invited to reflect on their experiences.

The interviews, lasting approximately 20 minutes, were conducted via Zoom by senior researchers who were not involved in the original oral history interviews.

Questions focused on participants’ motivations for sharing their life histories, their experiences of the interview process, and their overall impressions of the research project.

Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis following Braun and Clarke’s (2006, 2019) method.

Sample

Twenty-five late-diagnosed autistic adults participated in the study. They ranged in age from 45 to 72 years (M = 52.2 years) and had received their autism or Asperger’s diagnosis, on average, at age 48.

The sample included 15 females, 8 males, 1 non-binary individual, and 1 person who preferred not to disclose their gender.

Participants were predominantly white, highly educated (84% had at least an undergraduate degree), and employed (76%).

They came from diverse parts of Australia, with 64% living in cities and the remainder in regional or remote areas.

Results

Four main themes emerged from the analysis:

The affordances of autistic space

Participants felt supported throughout the research process and appreciated the participatory nature of the study.

One participant stated, “It was always relaxed and very open and well communicated about what was going on and what the process was” [HH028].

Sharing life stories takes its toll

Despite feeling supported, participants found the process of sharing their life histories emotionally and physically draining.

One participant described it as “incredibly draining” [HH016] and “pretty intense” [HH011].

Being heard and acknowledged

Participants reported that sharing their stories fostered self-acceptance and helped them gain confidence.

One participant explained, “The more you can talk about it to people who understand, who aren’t almost questioning whether it’s valid, or aren’t we all a little bit autistic? The more I can talk about it to people who get it, the more my own acceptance is solidified” [HH005].

Research as advocacy

Many participants viewed their involvement as a form of advocacy for the autistic community.

One participant stated, “It was a key moment for me to stand up, actually, and be counted for a change” [HH033].

Insight and Depth

This study provides valuable insights into the benefits of participatory research approaches in autism studies.

By involving autistic researchers and prioritizing participants’ comfort and agency, the research created a safe space for authentic sharing.

The findings suggest that this approach not only enhances the quality of data collected but also has potential therapeutic benefits for participants.

The study highlights the importance of “insider researchers” in bridging the epistemological divide between researchers and the autistic community, challenging traditional power dynamics in research.

Strengths

This study had several strengths, including:

  1. The study employed a participatory approach throughout, involving autistic researchers in design, implementation, and analysis.
  2. The research addressed an understudied population (late-diagnosed autistic adults) and an understudied aspect of participatory research (impact on participants).
  3. The study used rigorous qualitative methods, including reflexive thematic analysis and member checking.
  4. The research team included both autistic and non-autistic researchers, allowing for diverse perspectives in data interpretation.

Limitations

This study also had several limitations, including:

  1. The sample was relatively homogeneous, consisting primarily of white, highly educated, and employed individuals.
  2. The positive experiences reported may be partially attributed to the specific nature of oral history methodology, which may not generalize to other research approaches.
  3. The study relied on self-reported experiences, which may be subject to recall bias or social desirability effects.
  4. The research was conducted within an Australian context, potentially limiting its generalizability to other cultural settings.

Implications

The findings have significant implications for the conduct of autism research:

  1. Involving autistic researchers can enhance participants’ comfort and willingness to share authentic experiences.
  2. Participatory approaches may have therapeutic benefits for participants beyond the research outcomes.
  3. The study challenges traditional power dynamics in research and emphasizes the value of experiential expertise.
  4. Researchers should consider the emotional impact of participating in studies and provide appropriate support.
  5. The findings support calls for increased involvement of autistic individuals in all stages of the research process.

Conclusion

This study demonstrates the profound impact that participatory research approaches can have on autistic participants, researchers, and the quality of research itself.

By creating autistic-led spaces and valuing experiential expertise, researchers can enhance the relevance and authenticity of autism studies.

The findings highlight the need for continued efforts to bridge the epistemological divide between autism researchers and the autistic community.

Future research should explore the applicability of these approaches to more diverse autistic populations and research methodologies.

As the field of autism research evolves, it is crucial to recognize the complexity and sensitivity of autistic experiences and to prioritize meaningful involvement of autistic individuals in all aspects of research that affect their lives.

References

Primary reference

Pellicano, E., Lawson, W., Hall, G., Mahony, J., Lilley, R., Heyworth, M., Clapham, H., & Yudell, M. (2022). “I Knew She’d Get It, and Get Me”: Participants’ Perspectives of a Participatory Autism Research Project. Autism in Adulthood4(2), 120-129. https://doi.org/10.1089/aut.2021.0039

Other references

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(4), 589-597.

Brett, J. O., Staniszewska, S., Mockford, C., Herron‐Marx, S., Hughes, J., Tysall, C., & Suleman, R. (2014). Mapping the impact of patient and public involvement on health and social care research: a systematic review. Health expectations17(5), 637-650. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1369-7625.2012.00795.x

Concannon, T. W., Fuster, M., Saunders, T., Patel, K., Wong, J. B., Leslie, L. K., & Lau, J. (2014). A systematic review of stakeholder engagement in comparative effectiveness and patient-centered outcomes research. Journal of general internal medicine29, 1692-1701. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-014-2878-x

den Houting, J. (2019). Neurodiversity: An insider’s perspective. Autism, 23(2), 271-273.

Lai, M. C., & Baron-Cohen, S. (2015). Identifying the lost generation of adults with autism spectrum conditions. The Lancet Psychiatry2(11), 1013-1027. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(15)00277-1

Milton, D., Mills, R., & Pellicano, E. (2014). Ethics and autism: Where is the autistic voice? Commentary on Post et al. Journal of autism and developmental disorders44, 2650-2651. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-012-1739-x

Pellicano, E., Dinsmore, A., & Charman, T. (2014). What should autism research focus upon? Community views and priorities from the United Kingdom. Autism18(7), 756-770. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361314529627

Keep learning

Suggested Socratic questions for a college class discussion:

  1. How might the involvement of autistic researchers in this study have influenced the participants’ responses? What are the potential benefits and drawbacks of this approach?
  2. In what ways does this study challenge traditional power dynamics in academic research? How might these findings apply to other fields of study involving marginalized populations?
  3. The study found that sharing life stories was both emotionally draining and empowering for participants. How might researchers balance the potential benefits and risks of such intensive research methods?
  4. Given the homogeneous nature of the sample, how might the findings differ if the study were conducted with a more diverse group of autistic adults? What additional factors should be considered?
  5. How does the concept of “epistemic fluency” apply to this research? In what ways can researchers from different backgrounds (autistic and non-autistic) complement each other’s expertise?
  6. The study suggests that participatory research may have therapeutic benefits for participants. How might this impact the ethical considerations and design of future autism research?
  7. How might the findings of this study inform policies and practices in other areas, such as healthcare, education, or employment, for autistic adults?
  8. What are the potential long-term implications of increasing autistic involvement in autism research? How might this shift affect our understanding of autism and neurodiversity?
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Saul McLeod, PhD

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

Saul McLeod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.


Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

h4 { font-weight: bold; } h1 { font-size: 40px; } h5 { font-weight: bold; } .mv-ad-box * { display: none !important; } .content-unmask .mv-ad-box { display:none; } #printfriendly { line-height: 1.7; } #printfriendly #pf-title { font-size: 40px; }