Do Different Kinds of Minds Need Different Kinds of Services? Qualitative Results from a Mixed-Method Survey of Service Preferences of Autistic Adults and Parents

IF 2.6 4区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS
M. Ariel Cascio, Eric Racine
{"title":"Do Different Kinds of Minds Need Different Kinds of Services? Qualitative Results from a Mixed-Method Survey of Service Preferences of Autistic Adults and Parents","authors":"M. Ariel Cascio, Eric Racine","doi":"10.1007/s12152-022-09487-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Many services can assist autistic people, such as early intervention, vocational services, or support groups. Scholars and activists debate whether such services should be autism-specific or more general/inclusive/mainstream. This debate rests on not only clinical reasoning, but also ethical and social reasoning about values and practicalities of diversity and inclusion. This paper presents qualitative results from a mixed-methods study. An online survey asked autistic adults and parents of autistic people of any age in Canada, the United States, Italy, France, and Germany what types of services they prefer (autism-specific, mixed-disability, or general/inclusive/mainstream). This paper presents the advantages and disadvantages of different service types, identified through inductive thematic coding and organized into higher-level themes focusing on clinical, structural, societal, interpersonal, and personal aspects of services. Autism-specific services were praised for addressing autism needs, helping clinically, and providing interpersonal benefits of others understanding autism; general services were praised for inclusion, helping clinically, community obligations and awareness, and social skills development. Looking at the interaction of these different aspects in respondent narratives nuances debates about autism-specificity, with a complex interplay between clinical, interpersonal, and societal aspects. Clinical and social perspectives are not necessarily separate and opposed, but intertwined based on different understandings of inclusion. Compared to parents, adults focused more on harm/safety issues, enjoyment, and stereotyping among other themes, attending to personal themes. These findings do not identify one best service type, but suggest that determining the right service in a given context may be informed by definitions of and goals about inclusion.</p>","PeriodicalId":49255,"journal":{"name":"Neuroethics","volume":"20 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neuroethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-022-09487-x","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Many services can assist autistic people, such as early intervention, vocational services, or support groups. Scholars and activists debate whether such services should be autism-specific or more general/inclusive/mainstream. This debate rests on not only clinical reasoning, but also ethical and social reasoning about values and practicalities of diversity and inclusion. This paper presents qualitative results from a mixed-methods study. An online survey asked autistic adults and parents of autistic people of any age in Canada, the United States, Italy, France, and Germany what types of services they prefer (autism-specific, mixed-disability, or general/inclusive/mainstream). This paper presents the advantages and disadvantages of different service types, identified through inductive thematic coding and organized into higher-level themes focusing on clinical, structural, societal, interpersonal, and personal aspects of services. Autism-specific services were praised for addressing autism needs, helping clinically, and providing interpersonal benefits of others understanding autism; general services were praised for inclusion, helping clinically, community obligations and awareness, and social skills development. Looking at the interaction of these different aspects in respondent narratives nuances debates about autism-specificity, with a complex interplay between clinical, interpersonal, and societal aspects. Clinical and social perspectives are not necessarily separate and opposed, but intertwined based on different understandings of inclusion. Compared to parents, adults focused more on harm/safety issues, enjoyment, and stereotyping among other themes, attending to personal themes. These findings do not identify one best service type, but suggest that determining the right service in a given context may be informed by definitions of and goals about inclusion.

不同的人需要不同的服务吗?孤独症成人和父母服务偏好的混合方法调查的定性结果
许多服务可以帮助自闭症患者,如早期干预、职业服务或支持团体。学者和积极分子争论这些服务是应该针对自闭症,还是更普遍/更包容/更主流。这场辩论不仅依赖于临床推理,还依赖于关于多样性和包容性的价值和实用性的伦理和社会推理。本文介绍了一种混合方法研究的定性结果。一项在线调查询问了加拿大、美国、意大利、法国和德国的自闭症成年人和自闭症患者的父母,他们喜欢哪种类型的服务(自闭症专用、混合残疾、或一般/包容性/主流)。本文介绍了不同服务类型的优缺点,通过归纳主题编码识别,并组织成更高层次的主题,重点关注服务的临床、结构、社会、人际和个人方面。针对自闭症的服务因满足自闭症需求、提供临床帮助以及为他人理解自闭症提供人际利益而受到称赞;一般事务因包容、临床帮助、社区义务和意识以及社会技能发展而受到赞扬。观察受访者叙述中这些不同方面的相互作用,就会发现关于自闭症特异性的争论存在细微差别,在临床、人际关系和社会方面存在复杂的相互作用。临床和社会观点不一定是分开和对立的,而是基于对包容的不同理解而交织在一起的。与父母相比,成年人更关注伤害/安全问题、享受和刻板印象等主题,关注个人主题。这些发现并没有确定一种最佳的服务类型,但表明在给定的上下文中确定正确的服务可能是由包含的定义和目标提供的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Neuroethics
Neuroethics MEDICAL ETHICS-
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
7.10%
发文量
31
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Neuroethics is an international, peer-reviewed journal dedicated to academic articles on the ethical, legal, political, social and philosophical questions provoked by research in the contemporary sciences of the mind and brain; especially, but not only, neuroscience, psychiatry and psychology. The journal publishes articles on questions raised by the sciences of the brain and mind, and on the ways in which the sciences of the brain and mind illuminate longstanding debates in ethics and philosophy.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信