4.5 Review

Annual Research Review: Shifting from 'normal science' to neurodiversity in autism science

期刊

JOURNAL OF CHILD PSYCHOLOGY AND PSYCHIATRY
卷 63, 期 4, 页码 381-396

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jcpp.13534

关键词

Autism; ethics; medical model; neurodiversity; social model of disability

资金

  1. Australian Research Council Future Fellowship [FT190100077]
  2. Macquarie University Research Fellowship
  3. Cooperative Research Centre for Living with Autism (Autism CRC)
  4. Australian Government's Cooperative Research Centres Program
  5. Australian Research Council [FT190100077] Funding Source: Australian Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This review focuses on the challenges that the conventional medical paradigm of child psychiatry faces, emphasizing on deficits, individual rather than broader context, and a narrow perspective. It also explores how elements of the neurodiversity paradigm can potentially overcome the limitations of the medical model in autism research.
Since its initial description, the concept of autism has been firmly rooted within the conventional medical paradigm of child psychiatry. Increasingly, there have been calls from the autistic community and, more recently, nonautistic researchers, to rethink the way in which autism science is framed and conducted. Neurodiversity, where autism is seen as one form of variation within a diversity of minds, has been proposed as a potential alternative paradigm. In this review, we concentrate on three major challenges to the conventional medical paradigm - an overfocus on deficits, an emphasis on the individual as opposed to their broader context and a narrowness of perspective - each of which necessarily constrains what we can know about autism and how we are able to know it. We then outline the ways in which fundamental elements of the neurodiversity paradigm can potentially help researchers respond to the medical model's limitations. We conclude by considering the implications of a shift towards the neurodiversity paradigm for autism science.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据