Cited by 168Mental Health and Patient InvolvementCommunity Health and DevelopmentParticipatory Visual Research Methods

“I’m not just a guinea pig”: academic and community perceptions of participatory autism research

den Houting, Jacquiline, Higgins, Julianne, Isaacs, Kathy, Mahony, Joanne, Pellicano, Elizabeth·2021·Autism

Abstract

Despite calls for increased community engagement in autism research, the published evidence base suggests that participatory autism research remains rare. This study examined the extent and nature of community engagement in Australian research projects commissioned by the Autism CRC. Data were gathered using an online survey, comprising quantitative scale items and qualitative free-text responses, which was completed by 64 academic partners and 15 community partners. Quantitative findings indicated that autism research stakeholders in Australia are largely supportive of community engagement in research and have had positive experiences of participatory research. These findings were not wholly corroborated by the qualitative findings, however, which suggested that participants lacked understanding of participatory research, and held attitudes that may hinder the conduct of successful participatory research. Systemic issues within research settings were also perceived to impede community engagement in research. Both academic and community partners would benefit from better understanding of participatory research approaches, paired with practical and epistemological shifts at the systemic level, to ensure that future community engagement in autism research is respectful, equitable and beneficial to all stakeholders. Lay abstract: Participatory research means working together ( engaging) with the community that is affected by research to make decisions about that research. Participatory research is common in some fields, but it is still rare in autism research. In this study, we wanted to find out how Australian autism researchers and community members feel about participatory research. We worked with an Autistic Advisory Group to design this study, understand the results and write this article. We asked 127 people, all working on research from the Cooperative Research Centre for Living with Autism, to complete an online survey about participatory research. The survey included some questions that were answered on rating scales, and some where participants wrote their own answers. Seventy-nine people (64 researchers and 15 community members) completed most or all of the survey. The rating scales showed that most participants (82%) supported moderate or extensive community engagement in research, and most participants (72%) thought there should be more community engagement in autism research. In general, the participants rated their experiences of participatory research positively. Using the participants’ own written answers, we found four main ideas: (1) participatory research is important, but difficult; (2) many people do not fully understand what participatory research is; (3) academics and community members do not work together as = and (4) research systems are not designed for participatory research. Our results suggest that autism researchers and community members want to do more participatory research, but they might need training, support and funding to do participatory research well.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1362361320951696

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Such antipathy makes respectful debate framed by contemporary best practice approaches to autism research unlikely.

    “Such antipathy makes respectful debate framed by contemporary best practice approaches to autism research (Fletcher-Watson et al., 2019, 2021; den Houting et al., 2021; Keating, 2021) unlikely.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
den Houting, J., Higgins, J., Isaacs, K., Mahony, J., & Pellicano, E.
Affiliations
  • Macquarie University, Australia
  • UNSW Sydney (AU)
  • Autism CRC (AU)
Venue
Autism
Published
2020-08-27
Volume
25
Issue
1
Pages
148-163
ISSN
  • 1362-3613 (ISSN-L)
  • 1461-7005
OpenAlex
W3082254080
Cited by
168
References
12
Citations by year
2026: 37 · 2025: 37 · 2024: 37 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 11
FWCI
14.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Autism (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Cooperative Research Centre for Living with Autism (0.011RS)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Community Health and Development
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Participatory Visual Research Methods
Keywords
participatory research, community participation, autism research, stakeholder perspectives, university-community collaboration, research systems, epistemological change, research equity
MeSH terms
Autism Spectrum Disorder, Animals, Australia, Autistic Disorder, Guinea Pigs, Humans, Perception, Community-Based Participatory Research

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review