Person- and identity-first language in autism research: A systematic analysis of abstracts from 11 autism journals

Abstract

We examined the use of person- and identity-first language (PFL, IFL) in scholarly writing about autism by reviewing 12,962 journal abstracts from 11 autism research journals (mostly covering the years 2001–2022). We found a preference for PFL (64.68%) over IFL (15.83%) when considering aggregated, within-journal breakdowns (with abstracts using both representing 19.50%). However, when examining language use longitudinally, we observed a general trend toward increasing use of IFL after years of stable trends showing predominant use of PFL. These trends were not consistent across all reviewed journals, as some journals demonstrated preference for either PFL or IFL across all observed years. Notably, we highlight the Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders as a special case that offers a 51-year perspective (1971–2022); here, IFL was predominant until the 1990s, when PFL became a stable majority, and in the late 2010s, IFL started to increase. Journal differences in aggregate breakdowns and longitudinal trends are discussed in line with recent policy changes, journal submission guidelines, and shifting perspectives in autism research. Implications for writing about autistic individuals and the role that language plays within the broader autism research scholarly community are discussed.

Lay Abstract

There are many ways to refer to an individual who is on the autism spectrum. A recommended approach has been to use person-first language (PFL), such as “person with autism.” A different approach is to use identity-first language (IFL), such as “autistic person.” Recent studies focused on different groups of people (e.g. autistic self-advocates, parents, and practitioners) show that some groups prefer PFL (practitioners) while others prefer IFL (autistic self-advocates). However, less is known about how researchers use PFL and IFL in academic writing (e.g. studies published in scientific journals) involving autistic research participants. Our study examined 12,962 journal abstracts (short summaries of scientific articles) from 11 academic journals that publish autism research findings. We wanted to know (a) about the use of PFL and IFL across abstracts, and (b) how PFL and IFL use has changed annually over time. We examined data for all journals individually and grouped together. Our findings showed that journal abstracts generally use PFL (65%) with some using either IFL (16%) or both PFL and IFL (20%). However, journals varied, with some showing a clear majority for PFL and a couple for IFL. Examining trends over time across journals showed that while PFL appeared to be the majority for most journals, IFL has steadily increased in the recent few years. Our study helps us understand how autism researchers write about autistic individuals and offers implications for helping researchers intentionally make choices about the language used in their autism research studies.