英国的倡导和开放科学:自闭症战争中的案例研究

IF 2.1 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Mickey Keenan, Karola Dillenburger
{"title":"英国的倡导和开放科学:自闭症战争中的案例研究","authors":"Mickey Keenan, Karola Dillenburger","doi":"10.1007/s40617-023-00881-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Individuals on the autism spectrum experience a wide range of support needs and it comes as no surprise that opinions differ as to the best way to provide necessary supports. Some articulate self-advocates argue that societal acceptance of neurodiversity is the key issue. These views have clashed with those of parents and professionals who advocate for access to evidence-based interventions for profoundly autistic children and adults. The consequences of these kinds of differing opinions are so far-reaching that the term “autism wars” was coined. In this article, we argue that although acceptance of diversity is obviously important, this should include an openness to diverse scientific traditions, especially if lack of such openness limits public policy and adversely affects individuals and families. “Open Science” holds much promise in many fields, but its influence cannot be taken for granted when it comes to evidence-based support practices that are grounded in the science of behavior analysis. Benefiting from open science in autism research requires well-developed advocacy skills. To illustrate, we use case studies from the UK, where advocates of open science have met with intractable obstacles.</p>","PeriodicalId":47310,"journal":{"name":"Behavior Analysis in Practice","volume":" 7","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Advocacy and Open Science in the UK: Case Studies in the Autism Wars\",\"authors\":\"Mickey Keenan, Karola Dillenburger\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40617-023-00881-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Individuals on the autism spectrum experience a wide range of support needs and it comes as no surprise that opinions differ as to the best way to provide necessary supports. Some articulate self-advocates argue that societal acceptance of neurodiversity is the key issue. These views have clashed with those of parents and professionals who advocate for access to evidence-based interventions for profoundly autistic children and adults. The consequences of these kinds of differing opinions are so far-reaching that the term “autism wars” was coined. In this article, we argue that although acceptance of diversity is obviously important, this should include an openness to diverse scientific traditions, especially if lack of such openness limits public policy and adversely affects individuals and families. “Open Science” holds much promise in many fields, but its influence cannot be taken for granted when it comes to evidence-based support practices that are grounded in the science of behavior analysis. Benefiting from open science in autism research requires well-developed advocacy skills. To illustrate, we use case studies from the UK, where advocates of open science have met with intractable obstacles.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47310,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Behavior Analysis in Practice\",\"volume\":\" 7\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Behavior Analysis in Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-023-00881-2\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Behavior Analysis in Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-023-00881-2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

自闭症患者需要各种各样的支持,对于提供必要支持的最佳方式,意见不一也就不足为奇了。一些善于表达的自我倡导者认为,社会对神经多样性的接受是关键问题。这些观点与主张为重度自闭症儿童和成人提供循证干预的家长和专业人士的观点发生了冲突。这些不同意见的影响是如此深远,以至于“自闭症战争”这个词被创造出来。在本文中,我们认为,虽然接受多样性显然很重要,但这应该包括对不同科学传统的开放,特别是如果缺乏这种开放限制了公共政策并对个人和家庭产生不利影响。“开放科学”在许多领域都有很大的前景,但当涉及到基于行为分析科学的循证支持实践时,它的影响不能被视为理所当然。从自闭症研究的开放科学中获益需要良好的宣传技巧。为了说明这一点,我们使用了来自英国的案例研究,在那里,开放科学的倡导者遇到了棘手的障碍。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Advocacy and Open Science in the UK: Case Studies in the Autism Wars

Advocacy and Open Science in the UK: Case Studies in the Autism Wars

Individuals on the autism spectrum experience a wide range of support needs and it comes as no surprise that opinions differ as to the best way to provide necessary supports. Some articulate self-advocates argue that societal acceptance of neurodiversity is the key issue. These views have clashed with those of parents and professionals who advocate for access to evidence-based interventions for profoundly autistic children and adults. The consequences of these kinds of differing opinions are so far-reaching that the term “autism wars” was coined. In this article, we argue that although acceptance of diversity is obviously important, this should include an openness to diverse scientific traditions, especially if lack of such openness limits public policy and adversely affects individuals and families. “Open Science” holds much promise in many fields, but its influence cannot be taken for granted when it comes to evidence-based support practices that are grounded in the science of behavior analysis. Benefiting from open science in autism research requires well-developed advocacy skills. To illustrate, we use case studies from the UK, where advocates of open science have met with intractable obstacles.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Behavior Analysis in Practice
Behavior Analysis in Practice PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
自引率
18.20%
发文量
94
期刊介绍: Behavior Analysis in Practice, an official journal of the Association for Behavior Analysis International, is a peer-reviewed translational publication designed to provide science-based, best-practice information relevant to service delivery in behavior analysis. The target audience includes front-line service workers and their supervisors, scientist-practitioners, and school personnel. The mission of Behavior Analysis in Practice is to promote empirically validated best practices in an accessible format that describes not only what works, but also the challenges of implementation in practical settings. Types of articles and topics published  include empirical reports describing the application and evaluation of behavior-analytic procedures and programs; discussion papers on professional and practice issues; technical articles on methods, data analysis, or instrumentation in the practice of behavior analysis; tutorials on terms, procedures, and theories relevant to best practices in behavior analysis; and critical reviews of books and products that are aimed at practitioners or consumers of behavior analysis.
×
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