Autism charities are necessary organisations. They provide Essential services For autistic people, Influences policy decisionsand speak often by of autistic people
This implies that how these charities write about autistic people can influence how society understands what it means to be autistic. The words and pictures that autism charities select to make use of affect how autistic individuals are perceived, understood and cared for. This really matters, because autism remains to be quite common Disgrace.
Our recent study Shows that the language and pictures utilized by major autism charities mainly present autistic people as an issue. In contrast, charities represent themselves as the answer to this problem.
In England and Wales, a wide range of charitable organizations are necessary providers of public services. Charities are sometimes seen as government The best way Addressing the needs of disadvantaged or underserved groups, including autistic individuals. receive some Specialist care and education services from autism charities.
These charities also influence policy debates and decisions. Research carried out by autism charities is frequently cited In Parliament. The NHS refers to each national and native support for autistic people and their carers Charities.
The previous Research It has been shown how some varieties of charities (especially large International development charities) Explain The people they wish to take care of are developing country communities with negativity and problems. People are sometimes portrayed as “passive”, “voiceless” and “(culturally) marginalized”.
Similarly, a small amount of research shows that autism charity advertisements and web sites consistently present negative portrayals of autistic people. For example, a previous study Describes An commercial for a UK charity called autism “a child-promoting monster that had to be destroyed to allow the boy to live a normal life”.
How we did our research
For our study, we identified the biggest autism charities in England and Wales. We used to Data The Charity Commission is tasked with identifying charities with an income of £10 million or more and which give support exclusively to autistic adults, children or each. There were 11 charities that met these criteria. Next, we downloaded probably the most recent annual reports and accounts for these charities.
We explored how autism charities described themselves and the federal government. We used to Important studies of autism – which tries to query stereotypes, and see autism as a difference moderately than a disorder – as a perspective to guage and explain reports, and suggest how things may be improved.
We have found that autistic individuals are largely presented as problems, as challenges and burdens. Autistic individuals are often portrayed as poor and childish. Each charity featured autistic people as needing to vary. They say that autistic people needs to be more communicative or flexible.
We imagine that the usage of such language and imagery has negative consequences for wider societal attitudes towards autistic people. In contrast, in these documents, charities – which didn’t look like headed by autistic people – presented themselves as experts, with the authority to act and speak on behalf of autistic people.
This links to a robust message in these reports that these charities have to give you the chance to do more, to be larger and infrequently higher known, and that more funding is required to enable them to attain this.
Master 1305/Shutterstock
It seems to reflect that The “non-disabled savior” trope It has been found common in popular culture. This trope highlights the motion, even heroism, of non-disabled people “saving” non-disabled people, moderately than centralizing disabled people's agency.
All these charities also describe themselves as being funded by the federal government. However, at the identical time, government is principally presented as an obstacle to the effective provision of services for autistic people. Government funding and policy decisions have been described as arbitrary and inconsistent. It suggests a government (each local and national) that’s ineffective and untrustworthy.
What should change?
We hope our findings encourage autism charities to contemplate how they describe the people they support. Words and imagery should convey the fact of autistic life moderately than leaning on outdated notions of pity or burden.
This starts with meaningful autistic representation in any respect levels of charity leadership, including decision-making roles. The representation shouldn’t be tokenistic. It should shape how organizations operate and communicate.
Charities and governments also have to rethink the present system of service delivery and funding, which frequently leaves autistic people behind and beyond charities.
Most of all, we hope that our research will help contribute to a society that doesn’t recognize autistic people as problems to be solved, but moderately individuals are valued and understood on their very own terms.