Beyond Single-Mindedness: A Figure-Ground Reversal for the Cognitive Sciences.

A fundamental fact about human minds is that they are never truly alone: all minds are steeped in situated interaction. That social interaction matters is recognized by any experimentalist who seeks to exclude its influence by studying individuals in isolation. On this view, interaction complicates cognition. Here, we explore the more radical stance that interaction co-constitutes cognition: that we benefit from looking beyond single minds toward cognition as a process involving interacting minds. All around the cognitive sciences, there are approaches that put interaction center stage. Their diverse and pluralistic origins may obscure the fact that collectively, they harbor insights and methods that can respecify foundational assumptions and fuel novel interdisciplinary work. What might the cognitive sciences gain from stronger interactional foundations? This represents, we believe, one of the key questions for the future. Writing as a transdisciplinary collective assembled from across the classic cognitive science hexagon and beyond, we highlight the opportunity for a figure-ground reversal that puts interaction at the heart of cognition. The interactive stance is a way of seeing that deserves to be a key part of the conceptual toolkit of cognitive scientists.

The Human Spectrum: A Phenomenological Enquiry within Neurodiversity.

INTRODUCTION: Autism has typically been characterized by its external manifestations rather than experienced phenomenology, with consequent impacts on both research and practice. There have recently been increasing calls for more phenomenological enquiry in autism, but little actual work reported. METHOD: A shared participatory phenomenological self-investigation was conducted, by the four authors, of lived experience across the autistic/non-autistic divide. The sample size was chosen as necessary for the feasibility and acceptability to participants of such work in this context. Roles of "researcher" and "interviewee" were purposefully alternated between participants to establish trust and reciprocity. Initial phenomenological reduction or bracketing was applied to the description and recording of each participant's intimate lived experience in a number of key domains across social relationships, the physical environment, development, and in adult life. These experiences were shared within dialogue to open them to investigation and questioning from the others, with alternating interviewer and respondent roles. A third step synthesized these shared observations across individuals into themes of continuity and difference. RESULTS: A number of emergent themes, such as the need for trust and reliability, and the impact of context on regulation of emotion, sociability, and empathy, showed striking commonalities between all participants. Other themes, such as primary sensory experience and social joining, pointed up more clear differences between autism and non-autism in development and the adult world. Themes of interest-focus and attention were marked by both commonalities and difference. CONCLUSIONS: This shared phenomenological method was taken as a first step within a new area of active investigation in autistic phenomenology. It proved successful in eliciting detailed information on self-experience. The results suggested hypotheses for a new understanding of autism within the wider "human" spectrum of experience; for instance, the common basic need for trust and social connection but striking differences in sensory experience. It suggested that some characteristics long thought intrinsic to autism, such as social mis-perception and reduced empathy, may be alternatively understood as state-dependent outcomes contingent on specific contexts and interactions. Implications are suggested for testing in further research, developmental theory, and intervention practice.

Questionnaires used in complex trauma intervention evaluations and consideration of their utility for autistic adults with mild intellectual disability: A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Research suggests some trauma symptoms e.g. avoidance are difficult to recognise in autistic people with intellectual disability while arousal/emotional and interpersonal difficulties may be useful signals. This review aims to (i) identify questionnaires used in general population complex trauma interventions to measure emotional and interpersonal difficulty and (ii) evaluate their psychometric properties to inform selection of a potential measure/s for use and/or adaptation for autistic people with mild intellectual disability and trauma related mental health conditions. METHODS: Stage 1: we searched Medline, Cinahl, Embase and PsycInfo for general population and clinical complex trauma intervention studies. Stage 2: we used a search filter in Embase to identify psychometric evaluations of relevant questionnaires used in Stage 1 studies and assessed these with the COnsensus based Standards for the selection of health based Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist. RESULTS: five studies were identified in Stage 1 utilising three measures of emotion dysregulation and interpersonal difficulties. Thirty-three articles on their psychometric properties were identified in Stage 2. Strongest psychometric evidence was found for the Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ) and Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS). CONCLUSIONS: Evaluating content validity/acceptability of the ERQ and DERS for autistic people with mild intellectual disability and trauma-related mental health conditions are useful next steps.

Deconstructing Diagnosis: Four Commentaries on a Diagnostic Tool to Assess Individuals for Autism Spectrum Disorders.

Diagnostic assessment tools are widely used instruments in research and clinical practice to assess and evaluate autism symptoms for both children and adults. These tools typically involve observing the child or adult under assessment, and rating their behaviour for signs or so-called symptoms of autism. In order to examine how autism diagnosis is constructed, how diagnostic tools are positioned, and how their trainings are delivered, we paid for four places on a training course for a diagnostic tool. We asked the attendees (the first four authors) to each produce a critical commentary about their impressions of the training and the diagnostic tool itself. Their commentaries are published here in full. They have various disciplinary backgrounds: one is a social scientist, one an ethicist, one a psychiatrist, and one a developmental psychologist. The commentaries are followed by a concluding section that summarises the themes, commonalities, and differences between their accounts of the training course. Authors differed as to whether the diagnostic tool is a useful and necessary endeavour. Nevertheless, all critiqued of the tool's lack of transparency, recognizing context, emotion, and differences in interpretation and power imbalances as playing an unidentified role in the assessment process. Based on this project, we recommend that training for raters for such tools should be accessible to a wider group of people, and incorporate more explicit recognition of its own limitations and commercialisation.

Making the future together: Shaping autism research through meaningful participation.

Participatory research methods connect researchers with relevant communities to achieve shared goals. These methods can deliver results that are relevant to people's lives and thus likely to have a positive impact. In the context of a large and growing body of autism research, with continued poor implementation, and some evidence of community dissatisfaction, there is a powerful case for participatory autism research. In order to develop a framework for such collaborative working, a UK seminar series was organised and co-produced by autistic and non-autistic people with academic, practitioner and lived expertise. This article reports on the outcomes from the series, identifying five topics relevant to building a community of practice in participatory research: Respect, Authenticity, Assumptions, Infrastructure and Empathy. Each topic is connected to a specific example from within and beyond research, to inspire new practices in the field. We call for the development of participatory research skills among the autism research community and the facilitation of greater autistic leadership of, and partnership in, research. Such work, if delivered to a high standard, is likely to lead to better translation into practice and improved outcomes for autistic people and those who support them.

Autistic expertise: a critical reflection on the production of knowledge in autism studies.

The field of autism studies is a highly disputed territory within which competing contradictory discourses abound. In this field, it is the voices and claims of autistic people regarding their own expertise in knowledge production concerning autism that is most recent in the debate, and traditionally the least attended to. In this article, I utilise the theories of Harry Collins and colleagues in order to reflect upon and conceptualise the various claims to knowledge production and expertise within the field of autism studies, from the perspective of an author who has been diagnosed as being on the autism spectrum. The notion that autistic people lack sociality is problematised, with the suggestion that autistic people are not well described by notions such as the 'social brain', or as possessing 'zero degrees of cognitive empathy'. I then argue, however, that there is a qualitative difference in autistic sociality, and question to what extent such differences are of a biological or cultural nature, and to what extent interactional expertise can be gained by both parties in interactions between autistic and non-autistic people. In conclusion, I argue that autistic people have often become distrustful of researchers and their aims, and are frequently frozen out of the processes of knowledge production. Such a context results in a negative feedback spiral with further damage to the growth of interactional expertise between researchers and autistic people, and a breakdown in trust and communication leading to an increase in tension between stakeholder groups. The involvement of autistic scholars in research and improvements in participatory methods can thus be seen as a requirement, if social research in the field of autism is to claim ethical and epistemological integrity.