Within the data, there were some differences constructed around children with autism regarding their age, level of functioning, and social impairments, with the differences within the condition being positioned as central to the perception of normality and abnormality. The different positions held by the speakers have the potential to impact those who feel entitled to speak about the condition. With much of autism research focused on the perspectives of a small group of individuals (i.e., researchers), questions can be raised regarding who ‘expert’ should shape the meaning(s) of autism, autism-related research, clinical practice and the activity of labelling behaviour versus The task of negotiating ‘normal’ ‘abnormal’. autistic/non-autistic identities is imbued with contradictions and is far more complicated than the binary construction of normal versus abnormal (Lester and Paulus 2012). There is therefore clearly a challenge for those considered impaired living in a society that is politically, socially and economically structured to privilege those who act and speak in normative ways (Lester and Paulus 2012). There are expectations within society that individuals will conform to the and these are postulated through various channels. ‘norm’ Health policies are languaged in various ways and political channels dictate what and who can or cannot be supported, positioning and constraining how patients’ voices and experiences might be countered by those in medicine (Ramanathan 2010). Additionally, cultural ideologies are influential in shaping normalcy and in recognising the needs of people with autism. For example, an appreciation of non-Western ideas regarding disability may offer greater inclusion for people with autism than Western medical models allow (Kapp 2011). It may be helpful for professionals to remain reflective about the varied perspectives of individuals with autism and their families. Who can claim the epistemic rights in a local or national context is essential for shaping the future of care and our understanding of the
Within the data, there were some differences constructed around children with autism regarding their age, level of functioning, and social impairments, with the differences within the condition being positioned as central to the perception of normality and abnormality. The different positions held by the speakers have the potential to impact those who feel entitled to speak about the condition. With much of autism research focused on the perspectives of a small group of individuals (i.e., ‘expert’ researchers), questions can be raised regarding who should shape the meaning(s) of autism, autism-related research, clinical practice and the activity of labelling behaviour ‘normal’ versus ‘abnormal’. The task of negotiating autistic/non-autistic identities is imbued with contradictions and is far more complicated than the binary construction of normal versus abnormal (Lester and Paulus 2012). There is therefore clearly a challenge for those considered impaired living in a society that is politically, socially and economically structured to privilege those who act and speak in normative ways (Lester and Paulus 2012). There are expectations within society that individuals will conform to the ‘norm’ and these are postulated through various channels. Health policies are languaged in various ways and political channels dictate what and who can or cannot be supported, positioning and constraining how patients’ voices and experiences might be countered by those in medicine (Ramanathan 2010). Additionally, cultural ideologies are influential in shaping normalcy and in recognising the needs of people with autism. For example, an appreciation of non-Western ideas regarding disability may offer greater inclusion for people with autism than Western medical models allow (Kapp 2011). It may be helpful for professionals to remain reflective about the varied perspectives of individuals with autism and their families. Who can claim the epistemic rights in a local or national context is essential for shaping the future of care and our understanding of the
CM377-Lester-F%20SS%20-%20REVISED.docx