Mod note: Posting on behalf of researcher (Jennifer.Kirton@liverpool.ac.uk)
Express your interest in participating here: https://livpsych.eu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_7QYz9IBOzVkHNT8
Mod note: Posted on behalf of researcher, Chloe Huang (email: pei-hsin.huang@durham.ac.uk):
We are recruiting participants for a survey study exploring autistic experiences of friendship across the lifespan, and how these may differ from those of non-autistic people. We are inviting both autistic and non-autistic adults aged 18 and over to take part.
The survey includes 12 open-ended questions, several questionnaires, and non-identifiable demographic questions. It takes approximately 40-60 minutes to complete.
At the end of the survey, you will have the option to enter a £10 Amazon voucher prize draw. You can also express your interest in taking part in a follow-up interview.
If you would like to participate, please use the following link:
https://durhamuniversity.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_8013ErelzqZ12US
Posting on behalf of the researcher (Gunita.maskalane2@stu.mmu.ac.uk)
Isn’t it paradoxical, as how we hear – ‘be authentic’, be yourself’ – yet it seems applicable to some people more than others, or maybe it is a loud and bright slogan to attract attention or one or another kind of psychologically explained phenomenon.
Through my research, I am exploring job interviews as experienced by Neurodivergent individuals, how the presentation of Neurodivergent differences is experienced in the process (well, are we welcomed to be our natural selves?) and how this impacts the outcomes.
I would love to connect and hear your stories of the job interview experience. The research invites autistic persons (self-identified and/or with a formal diagnosis, with/without co-occurring Neurodivergent conditions) with UK job interview experience in the last 5 years. The study takes place in May, June, July and the first part of August.
To take part in the study, please either message me privately on this social media platform/express interest under the post or contact me via email
Gunita.maskalane2@stu.mmu.ac.uk
As the sole researcher and a passionate advocate for the field, I am happy to connect, explain the research, and chat before you decide to participate or learn more.
If I may request that you share the study info with your networks, that would assist the study immensely. As more voices are heard and represented, a greater understanding of the impact of job interviews and what works well/what does not can be built to shape future recruitment practices, especially as simply wanting to work should not come at a cost to one's psychological well-being.
Thank you for reading the lengthy post, and your engagement is immensely appreciated.
Disclaimer: The diversity and preferences regarding the language and expression of one's identity are acknowledged. Thus, the researcher’s language only represents her pre-existing knowledge, as attained through engagement with the wider literature and her personal community network.
(The attached poster, in a pale contrasted violet and cream background, explains the study participant selection criteria, provides an explanation of the study phases and provides information on how to contact the researcher)
Mod note: Posting on behalf of the researcher
Link for the screening and forms, for those interested in participating. https://redcap.austin.utexas.edu/surveys/?s=KR48KP4CCNDNT37Y
Hello.
I’m an autistic undergraduate researcher at The University of Texas at Austin. I will be traveling to Europe this summer (July-August) for an independent research project on autism, institutional accessibility, and participation within higher education and research environments. I’ll be conducting interviews focused on lived experiences of how organizational structure, accommodation systems, predictability, communication norms, and institutional culture shape autistic participation and mental health within higher education.
I am looking to interview autistic students, recent graduates (within 2 years), and professors/instructors/researchers at the university level about their experiences. I will be in the Netherlands (Amsterdam), Germany (Cologne, Hamburg, Berlin), Belgium (Brussels), Denmark (Copenhagen), Sweden (Uppsala, Stockholm), and Finland (Helsinki).
The interviews would be semi-formal, in-person, and compensated. I am nonspeaking, so my communication will be written/typed, but I am okay with all communication methods and whatever interaction style someone prefers during an interview.
My project has IRB approval from UT Austin. If anyone is interested and/or has questions, you can email me at mh63854@my.utexas.edu. If appropriate, please pass this information along to others who you believe may be interested and fit this profile.
Abstract
Discourse on screen use in autism is largely dominated by risk-oriented, deficit-based, and alarmist narratives, often structured around the time-based construct of “screen time.” In this perspective essay, I argue for a more nuanced, context-sensitive, and neurodiversity-affirmative research agenda. Using an autoethnography-informed approach, I draw on my lived experiences as an autistic person alongside emerging empirical evidence to contend that screen use can also support autistic individuals in ways that closely align with their needs and preferences. I illustrate how screen use has enabled me to fulfill my core needs—particularly predictability, safety, autonomy, and meaningful belonging—which in turn facilitated my stress and sensory regulation, social development, executive functioning, and overall mental health across the lifespan. To move beyond limited framings of screen use in autism, I outline six key principles for a neurodiversity-affirmative research agenda: (1) adopt terminology that captures how and why digital media is used (e.g., “screen use” or “digital media engagement”); (2) examine the reasons, functions, and contexts of this use; (3) assess both potential benefits and risks in relation to the contextual factors that shape them; (4) evaluate outcomes that center autistic people’s autonomy, agency, and well-being; (5) acknowledge and respect neurodivergent developmental pathways and preferences; and (6) employ participatory and mixed-method approaches. Together, these principles can inform research, recommendations, and policies that enable more context-sensitive decisions and support autistic individuals to use screens in ways that enhance their development, mental health, and well-being on their own terms.
Read more:
Van Asselt, A. (2026). Beyond Screen Time: A Neurodiversity-Affirmative Research Agenda for Screen Use in Autism. Autism in Adulthood, 25739581261452097. https://doi.org/10.1177/25739581261452097
"Nothing about us without us.
That’s not a slogan. It’s an epistemological commitment."
>Most autism research has been done without us.
>Without our questions. Without our priorities. Without our presence at the table where the questions get chosen, the methods get designed, the findings get named. The result is decades of research that pathologizes our existence, ignores our testimony, and hands clinicians a deficit-first framework that does real harm to real people.
>We’re not neutral about this. We can’t be.
>But we’re also not anti-science. We’re anti-scientism — the belief that science alone produces valid knowledge, that lived experience is noise to be filtered out, that the measurer doesn’t belong in the measurement. Science and philosophy. Empiricism and voice. Skepticism and wonder. These aren’t opposites. They’re the whole point.
>This series is our research-storytelling practice in public form.
Read more at https://stimpunks.org/research/overview
Discuss here!
Mod note: Posting on behalf of the researcher, Caitlin Hughes
Research participants wanted
My name is Caitlin Hughes, and I am a PhD student in the School of Public Health and Social Work at Queensland University of Technology (QUT).
I am currently conducting research about neurodivergent affirming autistic mental health care.
I am inviting autistic adults aged 18 years or older, living in Australia, who have lived experience of both mental health conditions and accessing mental health care for therapeutic support, to take part in this research.
Participation involves:
• a one-on-one interview, approximately 1 hour
• a focus group, approximately 1 hour, held at a separate time
Participants will be compensated for their time.
To keep research and professional roles separate, current or past clients of Cathartic Collaborations are not eligible to participate. People who participate in this study also cannot access services through Cathartic Collaborations while they are participating in the research.
If you are interested in participating or have any questions, please contact:
caitlinnicole.hughes@hdr.qut.edu.au
Please note that I am unable to respond to expressions of interest or questions in the comments section. Contact must be made by email so I can maintain participant privacy.
This study has been approved by the QUT Human Research Ethics Committee. Ethics approval number: 9784.
This project from All Brains Belong (an autistic MD-run community/grassroots organization in Vermont, USA) is so fantastic and I wanted to share it with you all.
>The resources on this website include both research and lived experience. These were created by autistic/ADHD clinicians. We received input from more than 100 autistic people. We present information in text, pictures, and video. We hope that this makes things easier for patients and doctors to work through these health conditions together.
To learn more, visit https://allbrainsbelong.org/all-the-things
"Each of the 39 wedges in the circle represents one question in the Autism Symptom Dimensions Questionnaire. The traits associated with each question (listed below) are grouped into key symptom factors—the main aspects of behavior that evaluators look for when they assess someone for autism."
[Image: Graphic shows a chart resembling a color wheel with 29 wedges, each representing one trait from the Autism Symptom Dimensions Questionnaire. The traits are grouped by color into 10 key symptom factors including basic social communication, repetitive motor behaviors and restricted interests. Five concentric circular dotted lines represent possible scores of one to five, with five indicating a higher degree of neurodivergence. The 39 traits are listed alongside the chart.
Image: Amanda Montañez; Source: “The Autism Symptom Dimensions Questionnaire: Development and Psychometric Evaluation of a New, Open-Source Measure of Autism Symptomatology,” by Thomas W. Frazier et al., in Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, Vol. 65, No. 8; August 2023 (data)]
CW: medical invalidation, misdiagnosis, research ethics issues
I’ve got a long and honestly pretty upsetting story about a research experience, and I’m going to try to lay it out as clearly as possible.
I work in clinical research at a university, and I like participating in studies outside my field/department when I can. I signed up for a study on the reliability of adult ADHD diagnosis. I was diagnosed with autism + ADHD a little over a year ago, and the study advertised a comprehensive psychological evaluation, which sounded interesting.
The assessments they used included a clinical interview, selected DIAMOND modules (Anxiety, Mood, ADHD), the Barkley Adult ADHD Rating Scale‑IV, Conners CPT‑3, COWAT, Trail Making Test A/B, MMPI‑3, and some WAIS‑V subtests. Everything was administered by a grad trainee. The supervising licensed psychologist never met me but still signed the diagnostic report.
The “diagnostic” report they gave me said they ruled out ADHD. They claimed my executive functioning issues, attention problems, working‑memory weaknesses, etc. were better explained by “persistent anxiety and depression,” which they said they diagnosed me with, with diagnostic codes included. Their justification was that my CPT‑3 scores were mostly average with mild deficits, and that I had slightly elevated MMPI‑3 validity scales. (If you’ve ever taken the MMPI, you know it’s not exactly neurodivergent‑friendly.) The implication was basically that I over‑reported symptoms and it was “just anxiety.”
A huge red flag: they told me this report was equivalent to a medical report that could be used for accommodations or treatment. As someone who works in research, I know how serious it is to blur the line between research and clinical care. That alone is a problem I reported to the IRB.
But that wasn’t the only issue.
During the interview, I mentioned I had an autism diagnosis. They took that single comment and, in the report, said my profile was “inconsistent with autism” and that they ruled it out. They did not do any autism assessments or explore it further. They also claimed to rule out bipolar disorder, psychotic disorders, and a current eating disorder… none of which were assessed. They literally just took my word for past history and then declared those conditions “ruled out.” They said they ruled out a current eating disorder because I mentioned I had one in the past. Again, they didn’t assess or verify if I didn’t have a current eating disorder; they just took my word for it and said it was ruled it by them.
They also suggested I might show signs of a Cluster C personality disorder (specifically avoidant PD), which I’m pretty sure was them misinterpreting autistic traits.
I talked through all of this with a coworker/friend who is a neuropsychologist. She knows the program director and, with my permission, reached out. According to her, the director spoke with the psychologist, who is now “willing to talk to me and soften his conclusions.” He also said the IRB’s only concern was that a grad student was listed as PI instead of him. But the last update I got from the IRB was that they were still investigating, and I specifically asked whether the consent form I signed matched the approved version because there were irregularities there too.
The director told my coworker that the psychologist would be more involved in explaining results in the future, but honestly, I don’t feel like the seriousness of this situation is being acknowledged. This is a potentially dangerous way to run a research study, especially when they’re ruling out conditions they didn’t assess for, contradicting existing diagnoses, and presenting research as clinical care.
I’m frustrated, and I’m not sure what else to do besides follow up with the IRB (even though I know they can’t share much). My coworker sent a new statement from me to the director, but we haven’t heard back yet. I just want participants to be protected, and I needed to vent.
EDIT: I really wanted to thank you all so much for your support and encouragement. I was feeling pretty insecure about how much I should push this, and y’all have helped and encouraged me so much. And made me feel less alone. I also really appreciate the people who gave ideas for further reporting! Those are useful suggestions. I had considered reporting to the licensing board but worried that was too far, but I’m really considering it again now.
I do also want to give more context for where it’s at right now. The last I heard the IRB is continuing its investigation. The program director talked to the PI, that resulted in the email where he said the PI was open to “softening some of the conclusions.” Apparently the PI was also encouraged to be more involved in feedback sessions and be more careful about ruling out conditions that weren’t assessed. Though it did seem the PI was shifting some of the blame to the trainee. But the PI was also “open to meeting” with me to help me understand how the conclusions were reached. “It seems like one of her major concerns was the different outcome from this evaluation compared to other evaluations that she’s had, so perhaps such a discussion could help her understand how that happens.”
So I’ve requested a meeting with the program director directly, and I sent another follow-up email to the IRB today. Again, thank you all so much for your words of support!! It helped so much. I’ll update if anything happens.
Hi, I'm setting my son up with his first PC (previously he played on Switch using my Microsoft account).
I searched the sub and it seems that he will need to start over with his own Microsoft account, which is probably fine given he is also moving from Bedrock to Java and I'm not sure anything will transfer over from his account anyway? Please clarify if I'm wrong about that.
Can anyone provide some guidance on the best way to do this? I am purchasing the software for the PC now, but they asked me to sign into the Microsoft account and then I got stuck, not sure what to do.
As an AuDHD PDAer, I wanted to share this post from one of the people I most trust around the experience of PDA because it's relevant to all AuDHDers in that the science is still new and arguably quite behind lived experience when it comes to the combined autistic and ADHD neurobiology.
There is a significant difference between saying, “The research is still emerging, so let’s stay thoughtful,” and saying, “Because the research is not conclusive, your lived experience is unreliable.” The first position leaves room for humility. The second becomes a form of dismissal dressed up as rigour.
...
The deeper problem is that lived experience is being treated as though it is a temporary placeholder until science arrives. That is not how knowledge works, and it is certainly not how liberatory movements have ever worked. Lived experience is not a soft, sentimental, inferior form of knowledge. It is not always complete, and it is not beyond question, but it is knowledge.
...
Science does not become better by ignoring lived experience. Science becomes better when lived experience informs the questions being asked. Many of the things now discussed in relation to autism, disability, chronic illness, trauma, and neurodivergence were spoken about by people with lived experience long before they were formally recognised.
...
I am not interested in anti-intellectualism. I do not want communities built on unchecked claims, certainty without reflection, or refusal to engage with evidence. But I am equally uninterested in a version of intellectualism that treats university degrees, clinical titles, and published research as inherently superior to the knowledge that comes from living, parenting, supporting, teaching, and working on the ground.
...
Science matters, but it is not the only way humans come to know what is true and it is not separate from power. It is shaped by what researchers choose to study, who gets funded, whose experiences are considered measurable, whose language is taken seriously, and whose suffering is made visible. To point this out is not to reject science. It is to insist that science be held within a wider ethical frame. When science is used to deepen understanding, it can be liberating. When it is used to discredit people who are already marginalised, it becomes another tool of control.
— Kristy Forbes
Given the sub's focus on research, I think this inherent conflict is important to consider and I would love to see some conversation in the comments around how we navigate it as far as what posts and content are welcomed here.
Read full post here: https://kristyforbes.substack.com/p/when-science-is-used-to-silence
Budget: $2,000
Country: USA
Use Case: Gaming — Minecraft / School - Zoom
Preferred Specs: ???
Notes: See below
Hi, I'm mom to a 10 year old who needs a PC for Minecraft Java, and to have a machine to do online schooling which will involve additional gaming. I also anticipate him moving to Steam from the Switch and mobile, and having more gaming requirements in the near future. I would prefer a desktop for all the reasons, but we spend two months away from home and I need something portable. We're in the US.
I know the specs are different, so I guess I'm asking for best value for price. I would prefer to spend less, but I'd also like it to last so I've offered a range. I'm looking at:
Are these all good options? Should I be looking at something else altogether? Which of these specs are non-negotiable?
A note to consider: my kid has been known to damage devices (when dysregulated), but he has a high end tablet he has been taking good care of, so I'm hopeful he will do the same with his laptop. Any accessories I should plan to purchase, like a cooling pad, let me know.
TIA!
Participate in a research study focused on lived experiences and healing approaches.
Project Title: Treating Trauma in Young Adult Women with Autism through Somatic Therapeutic Approaches
Primary Researcher: Marisa Bridge, M.S.Ed., marib24@mail.regent.edu, Doctoral Student, PhD in Counseling and Psychological Studies, Regent University
Dissertation Chair: Jeremy Cooper, Ph.D., jerecoo@regent.edu, Adjunct Faculty, College of Health & Behavioral Sciences, Regent University
IRB Contact: IRB chair at irb@regent.edu or 757-352-5010
You may qualify if you are:
What Participation Looks Like:
Do You Identify As Autistic?
Belong To An Ethnic Minority Group?
Identify As A Woman?
Aged 18 Or Older?
Mariam Sobayo (Mariam.Sobayo2@Mail.Dcu.Ie), a graduate student at Dublin City University, is looking for research participants to inform their research:
At The Intersections Of Identity: Autistic Ethnic Minority Women Navigating Masking In Productivity- Driven Systems.
Aims: Understanding how productivity-driven pressures intersect with identity and masking, and how these dynamics affect autistic women from ethnic minority backgrounds in educational and professional contexts.
Link to register interest in study and gain additional information:
https://dcusurveys.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV\_8krdnicibUmFREG?Q\_CHL=qr
Posting on behalf of researcher Connie Matthew (Email: c.e.matthew@wlv.ac.uk):
AUTISTIC BURNOUT & SCHOOL RETURN
What: I am a Master's student at the University of Wolverhampton (MSc Psychology of Mental Health and Wellbeing). My research is a 45–60 minute online interview about your "lived experience" of returning to mainstream education after a period of burnout.
Who? I am looking for participants who:
How is it accessible?
Join Us: To read the full Information Sheet or ask any questions, please email the researcher directly: c.e.matthew@wlv.ac.uk
[Researcher: Connie Matthew | Ethics Approved | Unfunded Study]