Autism and Thriving: A Critical Review of the Academic Literature

Abstract

While traditional deficit-based biomedical accounts of autism have viewed autism itself as an obstacle to thriving, recent discussions based on social/relational models of disability argue that this pathologizing rhetoric perpetuates stigma and negative views of autism, which, in turn, create social and environmental challenges that hinder autistic people’s ability to thrive. In that sense, this critical review aimed to analyze how the current academic literature approaches the construct of autistic thriving, using techniques of critical discourse analysis. We found two broad categories that depict a contrast between studies that (1) viewed thriving as a process that looks the same to autistic and non-autistic people alike and perceived autism as a “problem” to be addressed and (2) articles that, alternatively, described autism as a natural difference and attempted to understand autistic thriving, to some extent, from an autistic perspective. We recommend future research that meaningfully and directly engages autistic people in expressing what thriving means to them and what factors facilitate it.

Community Brief

Why is this topic important?

Autistic people have shown worse mental health and well-being than non-autistic people in many studies. For a long time, researchers thought that autism was an obstacle to a good life, but recent ideas and research have said that many of the challenges autistic people face are because of external issues, such as discrimination. Researchers also began to think more about what makes a “good life” for autistic people specifically, as it may look different to what non-autistic people think.

What is the purpose of this article?

This article looked at studies about autistic thriving; we looked at what researchers believed autistic thriving means. We also looked at how the articles talked about autism and how much autistic people were involved in the research.

What did the researchers do?

We read six research articles and used techniques of critical discourse analysis (CDA) to look at how these articles studied and talked about autistic thriving. CDA techniques look at how people use language and words to build meaning in the world, such as what people think is “good,” “adequate,” “desirable,” or the opposite.

What were the results of the study?

We found that there were two different ways research spoke about autistic thriving. The first one includes articles where thriving was the same process for both autistic and non-autistic people, autism was seen as a problem, and autistic people were not at all involved in the research. The second one includes articles where the researchers tried to understand autistic thriving from an autistic point of view, and autism was seen as a natural difference, but only one article said that autistic people were directly involved in the research.

What do the authors recommend?

We need more research on autistic thriving, and this research should be guided by autistic people. Future studies should focus on asking autistic people what thriving means to them and finding the things that may help autistic people thrive.

How will these recommendations help autistic adults now or in the future?

The way research talks about autism influences how people act toward autistic people. Our findings help researchers think about how their work may impact autistic people’s lives, encouraging them to seek autistic people’s perspectives instead of making assumptions. Understanding what thriving means for autistic people helps researchers, professionals, and families foster a happier life for them.