This paper investigates what it is to understand human differences in terms of deficits and examines criticisms of this approach. In the past few decades, across many fields of inquiry and outside the academy there has been a surge of interest in critiquing "the deficit view" of all manner of group differences and deviations from the norm. But what exactly is meant by "deficit view" and related terms when they figure in accounts of human differences? Do critics of the deficit view claim that they are never appropriate or that particular applications of the approach are inappropriate? The aim of this paper is twofold: to identify and articulate some of the conceptual issues at the heart of debates about deficit approaches and to examine how these issues matter. Autism is my focus case. As we will see, many critiques of the deficit view of autism tend to characterize what is problematic about taking a deficit view in terms of the personal and social harm that deficit views can or do effect. One important upshot of my discussion, I argue, is that there is another kind of drawback to deficit thinking that is independent of the deficit view's potential negative personal and social consequences, a drawback that deserves serious consideration and sustained critical attention: in some instances, at least, deficit views impede scientific and philosophical progress in our understanding of the phenomena themselves. Thus, articulating and assessing deficit approaches is of practical and theoretical importance.
... Most of the research has been carried out by neurotypical people and there has been a focus on changing autistic people's deficits [14] rather than the social, attitudinal, and infrastructural barriers that exclude them. The importance of involving autistic people in research about them is increasingly being recognised. ...
This paper presents new empirical data obtained from interviews and focus groups on older (50 and over) autistic people’s experiences of accessing a variety of services. The involvement of older autistic people and giving voice to their experiences was central to all aspects of the research process. This work makes a significant contribution to the scarce literature on older autistic people. In particular, it discusses the factors that act as barriers and enablers to the access to and productive use of services, the strategies used by participants to manage and improve their experiences, and the success of these strategies. It shows older autistic people as autonomous adults and active protagonists in their own lives, taking action to overcome the barriers they experience to accessing services on the same terms as everyone else, but that lack of understanding and support from service providers and the general public can undermine their strategies. Finally, this work provides a series of recommendations for service providers to improve (older) autistic people’s service access and experiences.
... Emergencias culturales, performatividad e imaginación política -74-LA NECESIDAD DE UNA PERSPECTIVA DEL ENFOQUE DE LA NEURODIVERSIDAD EN LA SOCIEDAD Un aspecto clave para promover sociedades más justas e inclusivas, es cambiar la forma en que la sociedad y la ciencia perciben y abordan la neurodiversidad. Las neurodivergencias deben reconocerse como una expresión natural de la variabilidad humana y no como un "déficit" asociado con una "condición" (Dinishak, 2016). ...
Estudios Críticos sobre Neurodiversidad. Emergencias culturales, performatividad e imaginación política, es una obra que reúne mediante una operación polifónica voces de investigadores de reconocido prestigio a nivel mundial, entre ellos, Mieke Bal –estudios visuales– y Nick Walker –neurodiversidad–. Cada uno de los trabajos que integran esta obra reúnen conferencias y/o ponencias presentadas en el marco de la inauguración de la Cátedra Mieke Bal sobre Cine, Neurodiversidad y Análisis Cultural, en noviembre de 2022, así como, del Primer Seminario Internacional de Neurodiversidad en la Educación Superior, celebrado en octubre de 2022. Pensar en torno al corpus de implicaciones ontológicas, epistemológicas y metodológicas de lo que indexamos a través de la etiqueta de ‘neurodiversidad’ sugiere aprender a reconocer cómo son construidos los esquemas conceptuales específicos que vertebran sus principales agendas de trabajo y debates políticos de carácter específicos. Interpretada de este modo, la neurodiversidad en tanto fenómeno heurístico demuestra una gran capacidad para atravesar campos disciplinarios –lo que la convierte en un cruzador de fronteras disciplinarias– y un dispositivo de alter-disciplinario, demostrando cómo la fuerza analítica de su discurso posee la capacidad de alterar las dinámicas de producción del conocimiento, sus lenguajes, formas metodológicas y hábitos de pensamiento de aquellos territorios de investigación con los que entra en contacto. Su carácter de alteración es lo más llamativo de su discurso. Su interés subyace en la promoción de “reflexiones sobre lo que podría estar en juego en estas diferencias, centrándose en particular en un contraste central en torno a reconstruir o, alternativamente, rechazar o, al menos, diferir, supuestos normativos” (Burman, 2022, p.1027).
... This framework, in "contrast to the prevailing deficit construction of autism, which is individualising and pathologising…not only respects the complex personhood of autistic individuals, but also reveals how the construction of autistic identities holds important insights for how to rethink, and extend, ideas associated with cognitive 'normalcy' (or 'ability') and difference" (O'Dell et al., 2016, p. 169). This second tenet makes both an ethical and an epistemological argument for rejecting deficit-based constructions of autism: on the one hand, a deficit framework reduces the recognizability of a person or a group as human by assuming an absence of qualities that are considered to be inherent to what it means to be human, such as empathy or theory of mind (Dinishak, 2016). On the other, and by the same sleight of hand, autistic people are considered within a deficit reading as being, at best, unreliable witnesses to their own experience. ...
As with Neurodiversity Studies, Critical Autism Studies (CAS) traces its roots to early autistic activism before emerging as an academic field, and the line between activism and academia remains blurry. Academically, CAS has had something of a bumpy ride, with certain challenges from within sometimes appearing to risk its implosion. Today, however, CAS seems reinvigorated and as relevant as ever. This chapter describes the movements and developments within CAS since it was first mentioned in writing as an academic field, using the analogy of ‘branches’ to describe three inter-connected schools within the field. It then considers some recent developments in the field before turning to a reflection on the relationship between CAS and Neurodiversity Studies (NDS). This chapter is intended as a broad, introductory, and structural overview of the development of CAS and its relationship with NDS. It does not constitute a who’s who of all those involved in the field (if such a thing were possible) nor does it discuss the many contributions from different disciplines that have contributed to its development.
... This is opposed to a deficit view on students' mathematical problem solving, which focuses on what SLDs do not exhibit. Deficit views have been challenged by scholars, as seen in recent research on SLDs (e.g., Adiredja, 2019;Dinishak, 2016;Lewis & Lynn, 2018;Rappolt-Schlichtmann et al., 2018;Yeh et al., 2020). While some literature in the present study is presented with a deficit tone, this is done to reflect the actual language from the published study. ...
It has become something of a truism in certain circles to say that the road to epistemologically and ethically sound autism research requires the inclusion of autistic input into research processes. However, autism research is still overwhelmingly dominated by medical, psychological, and associated disciplines in which an assumption of autistic deficit is omnipresent. The processes supporting and perpetuating epistemic injustice in autism research are therefore intricate, long-standing, deeply entrenched, and powerful. As things stand, is the inclusion of autistic perspectives sufficient to disrupt the circular logic which characterizes much research in the field? What are some potential pitfalls of inclusive or participatory research in the current climate? While participation clearly holds value, is it the panacea that we have been led to believe? Or do we first need to unknow much of what we have been led to believe about autism, or indeed neurodivergence more broadly? This chapter critically analyzes these and other questions. To do so, it takes as a case study the largely absent concept of authenticity in autism research, relating this absence to epistemic injustice. The chapter goes on to propose the potential of unknowing as a methodological tool for Neurodiversity Studies, concluding with an unknower's toolbox, with concrete suggestions for integrating unknowing into research practice.
This chapter outlines new methods with which to understand an autistic ‘phenomenology’ which is representative of the diversity of autistic people. A neurodiverse research team works in co-production. Diverse autistic (and some comparator non-autistic) individuals undertake individual interviews using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis, to understand their experiences at depth. Themes are in parallel explored at breadth using a citizen science digital platform, allowing contributions on experience from a wide range of autistic (and some non-autistic) people. Further methods to reach those with different (often non-verbal) expressive ability use innovative participatory practices including immersive multisensory environments, with neuroscience tools capturing engagement, attention and response. This interdisciplinary method allows identification of common elements of experiences, including those with complex communication needs or intellectual disabilities. It empirically generates for the first time a shared, autistic phenomenology—with benefits, including: (i) shared understanding through mutual empathy and common language between professionals and the autistic community; (ii) new foci for scientific research through aspects of autistic experience previously neglected; (iii) added richness and utility for clinical phenotyping and diagnostic definitions; and (iv) helping identify new care pathways and supportive innovations for health care and education.
For computing to serve humanity, computing spaces must be safe for all individuals. While prior work has surfaced how hegemonic racial and gendered expectations manifest in computing, it has only indirectly attended to expectations surrounding neurodivergence. As computing stereotypes largely align with stereotypes of some neurodivergent individuals, we investigated whether computing legitimized neurodivergent traits over neuronormative ones. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 21 students, faculty, and industry professionals, sampling both neurodivergent-identifying and non-neurodivergent-identifying participants. We found that computing legitimized hyper-focus, deep “special” interests, and high organization, and that fitting these expectations was frequently required for persistence. Some neurodivergent-identifying participants felt that computing provided refuge from societal neuronormative expectations, though one’s sense of refuge depended on sufficiently fitting computing’s neurodivergent expectations. We offer reflections on inclusion and belonging efforts within computing, as well as directions for future work that attends to individuals’ neurodivergent identities.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.